The Future is in Our Hands EVERY YEAR: 10 Million Preventable Deaths and Trillions of Dollars

LOST

A guide to making informed, RESPONSIBLE choices in the fi ht against fight i t the th two t mostt deadly d dl preventable t bl calamities: l iti What we are getting and what we should demand in terms of reduction of premature deaths in exchange for our taxdollars and charitable donations.

Dario Crosetto

 

Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

Your action is needed! “10 Million Preventable Deaths …Lost Every Year (These people are younger than 75!): • •

6.5 million premature deaths from cancer 3.5 million premature deaths from malnutrition

You can be the change you want to see in the world by: 1. Signing the petition a (http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-preventable-deaths.html) to create laws and regulations requiring those who raise money to fight cancer to declare what they will give in return in terms of reduction of cancer deaths and costs. Each project should provide an estimate supported by scientific arguments of the percentage of cancer death reduction the project expects to attain, how much the project costs, when the first results can be expected, and the plan to measure results on a sample population. 2. Making a contribution to improve transparency, accountability, and reduce spending that does not yield results by comparing research projects in the fight against cancer from all over the world. 3. Dedicating some of your time to create awareness by spreading the word about this document and its cause. This document (available at www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf) has the objective to enlighten people how to make smart informed choices, by • • •

Analyzing b together (provide any feed-back) the causes of premature deaths Identifying the top causes of premature deaths that can be PREVENTED Studying how to save the highest number of lives with the lowest cost

Guidelines to reading this document: Because your time is precious, the document is structured to provide all relevant information on one page (page 1), six paragraphs, which is further explained in two pages of the Executive Summary (pp. 2-3). A third level of detail is described on pages 4 - 7 containing 18 bullet points, and a fourth level of detail is on 40 pages with 120 ref.s providing scientific supporting arguments to the statements in the previous pages that you can choose from the TOC on page 8. a

Sign the petition to stop preventable deaths: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-preventable-deaths.html

b

For example, data from the World Health Organization (see page 13) rank the mortality rate by cause of death, for the year 2008, from the highest (4.3 million death/year) to lowest (0.06 million death/year) in the following sequence: cancer, heart disease, accidents, respiratory infections, cerebro-vascular disease, diarrhea, HIV/AIDS, respiratory disease, digestive diseases, tuberculosis, malaria, diabetes, wars and civil conflict and Alzheimer-Parkinson-MS. Analyzing the first four causes of death: cancer, heart, malnutrition and accident, we have irrefutable data showing that early cancer detection can save lives in 90% to 98% of the cases. The money saved with a onetime surgery on a small tumor instead of the expensive prolonged painful chemotherapy treatments, could then be used to save lives from malnutrition which costs only $0.33 per person per day. Instead, cutting in half the number of premature deaths from heart disease is unlikely because its mortality has been already cut more than in half during the past 50 years, and because we are not aware of new breakthroughs in this field. Similarly there are no known solutions to halve deaths from accidents unless one invests huge sums of money to improve viability and educating drivers in the world. Using a similar logic, I continue the analysis of how different early cancer diagnosis projects around the world should be compared and the most cost-effective funded in order to save more lives, reduce cancer costs that currently have reached $1.4 trillion/year and use the money saved to reduce malnutrition in the world.

ii

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

Ask how your money is spent to reduce premature cancer death; publish the answers received

Ask how your money is spent to reduce premature death; publish the answers received! If you do not make your voice heard, others will decide how to spend your money for you Every citizen contributes to the cancer cost by $856 per person per year (calculated by dividing the 2010 U.S. cancer cost 3 of $263.8 billion by its population in 2010 of 308 million people). This amounts to $3,500/year for an average family of four. In 20 years that will be $70,000 that is further increased by inflation. This is not negligible in the budget of a family.

IF YOU DO NOT ASK those who are using your money to provide a link to the website describing their research and claims, supported by scientific arguments, demonstrating how they will achieve a reduction in cancer death and cost,

YOUR MONEY WILL BE LOST. Our precious resources and efforts will be nullified! Their answers will explain the discrepancy between cancer’s 100 times increased costs during the past 50 years, raising the global economic cost of cancer to $1.4 trillion per year with almost zero results while projects that could have reduced premature cancer deaths go unfunded.

Analyze and forward to be PUBLISHED on the Blog4 the answers you receive (or report those who do not respond) from those who spend your tax and donation dollars in the fight against cancer and from those who should promote the CORRECT information. Which decision maker or researcher could be against electing himself as the first judge of his project making an estimate of percent of lives that can be saved? Who better than himself could know the benefits of his project? This would reward the intellectual honesty of those who can first defend with scientific arguments their theoretical claims in a public debate with peers, and then demonstrate their feasibility with experimental results.

Our lives depend overall from receiving CORRECT information

3

 2010 U.S. cancer cost $263.8 billion http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc‐026238.pdf 

4

 Send Blog to http://www.crosettofoundation.com/home.php?p=blog.  D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

iii

 

Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

Find a logical answer to these questions and YOU will DRIVE the future At the heart of the solution to the cancer problem are those who are financing this field: THE CITIZENS with their tax-dollars and THE PHILANTHROPISTS with their donations who become informed and actively participate with awareness and responsibility. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. Look for the most reliable solution and give your money to the plan and project that can make the greatest impact in reducing cancer deaths and costs. Before making a donation to a cancer organization you should ask yourself the following questions: • • •

• •

Why are you interested in one cancer project over another? Why are you making a donation to one project rather than to another? Why give your money to an organization that cannot quantify benefits to cancer patients when there is another that is able to support its claims publicly that no one has been able to refute with scientific arguments? You would not want your money to go to people who cannot even demonstrate theoretically what they expect to achieve and do not have a plan on how to achieve it. Did you ask those who received funding in the past whether they have measured their results in the reduction in cancer death and if they achieved the reduction estimated? What have you done to ensure that your tax dollars and donations are going toward the best solution that can reduce cancer deaths and costs?

If not, years later you might realize that you contributed with your tax-dollars or donation to increase the $1.4 trillion/year global economic cost of cancer with no results because you did not take responsibility. Results will show the commitment, responsibility and reliability of each answer that individuals can provide to these questions. If there is a commitment made to find sound answers, THERE WILL BE RESULTS.

iv

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The scientific truth should prevail Not unsupported advertisements! It is not easy for CITIZENS and PHILANTROPISTS who DRIVE the FUTURE with their tax-dollars and donations to not be blinded by propaganda and advertisements. We should extract the essence of what is valuable to mankind so that the trend of the past 65 years that has not solved the problem of cancer death and cost reduction can change. CITIZENS and PHILANTROPISTs cannot blame the laws of nature (science) when they see no results in the fight against cancer after donating their money; neither should they blame inventors whose inventions do not receive funding after many years when their science is sound. Advertisements and propaganda, although very powerful, can never cover up wrong statements and wrong decisions. The majority of scientists before the XV century believed the Earth was at the center of the Universe. The Earth did not become a planet of the Solar system in the XV century because the majority of scientists changed their mind. No matter if a major research center such as CERN has the marketing power to publish in CERN’s Bulletin that they performed measurements with “outstanding accuracy” using instruments built in 2008 for measuring the speed of the neutrino showing breaking the speed of light. CERN propaganda doesn’t make it true! I built instruments in 2003 that can make measurements hundreds of times more accurate than what CERN built. No matter if NATURE news deleted after 18 days this “evidence” that CERN’s claim was not true that I published in their blog, or that FERMIlab silenced the effort of the Leonardo da Vinci competition to make the scientific truth prevail through their public, transparent, open scientific procedure. This does not change the truth. Natural laws have always been the same. The scientists were wrong when they stated that the Earth is at the center of the universe, and those from CERN are wrong when they stated that they performed measurements with outstanding accuracy. They are wrong because I provided schematics117 of circuits that anyone can build which proves that my design and hardware built five years earlier could make measurements for the same applications hundreds of times more accurately. They were wrong on many other issues: for example I demonstrated the feasibility of my innovations (recognized valuable for “…clever uses not now possible” by a major international review held at FERMIlab on December 14, 1993) by building and testing it in hardware. This would have allowed the discovery of new particles in Physics Experiments at a much lower cost through a more selective programmable apparatus capable of sustaining a high input data rate. However, just as they did when measuring the neutrino speed, they used more expensive technology not suitable to efficiently find new particles. More importantly, many lives could be saved and costs reduced with my latter inventions if scientists would support scientific procedures to make scientific truth prevail in a public debate among scientists who claim highest reduction in cancer deaths. Instead, it seems they intentionally deceive taxpayers and philanthropists by supporting marketing and propaganda and attempt to silence scientific truth on the web as reported before. The efficacy of my effort stops at the point where the readers (CITIZENS and PHILANTROPHISTS) need to understand the difference between: a) unsupported advertisements, and b) innovations and the scientific truth that benefits mankind. As nature has no responsibility for the time it takes for mankind to understand that the earth is not at the center of the universe (it took centuries), I am not responsible for the time it takes citizens, philanthropists, and decision makers to understand that my invention is valuable and worth funding, so that I can provide the benefit from premature cancer death reduction to mankind. Although most citizens and philanthropists are not able to fully understand the value and feasibility of the theory of one scientist with respect to another, he can accelerate the process of identifying and funding the one with highest potential to reduce premature cancer death and cost by asking each scientist and decision maker to take responsibility and be the judge of himself by making an estimate of the reduction in premature cancer death and cost that can be expected if he receives funding, and defend the claims of his theory (that he should describe, support scientifically the claimed reduction and make it available on the web) first in a transparent public debate before colleagues and later from the experiment on the date (from receiving funding) each one committed to as the time they would deliver the estimated results in cancer death reduction. Ask for their estimates and publish the answers received! D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

v

 

Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

Send us the questions you have sent to Decision Makers along with their answers and we will publish them

Your questions from the petition (http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-preventabledeaths.html, or reported on page 37 of this document) to decision makers, researchers and to those who should promote the CORRECT information along with their answers will be published at the end of this document. Please send your questions and their answers to [email protected]

vi

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

Dario B. Crosetto, President, Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Deaths 900 Hideaway Place DeSoto, TX. 75115-5213 Phone 972-223-2904 E-mail: [email protected]

To: Robert Turner, Sally Crawford and Steve Fluckiger of Jones Day, Dallas, and those listed at the end of this letter. And all those who care about defeating the deadliest and most costly calamity—cancer—by reducing premature deaths due to cancer, reducing the enormous costs associated with the disease and using the cost savings to significantly reduce malnutrition across the world. November 9th , 2011 Dear friends and concerned citizens:

Your awareness and participation as responsible citizens are needed to solve the calamity known as cancer and to reduce its economic burden. The money saved could then be used to significantly reduce malnutrition in the world. It’s up to you to build the world that you desire by asking what you will get in return in terms of reduction of cancer death and cost from people who handle your donations or tax dollars for cancer.

Give everyone a chance to live a healthy, honest and dignified life. Support the changes in the peer-review process to make it a true “public scrutiny” of scientific procedures, as started recently by the Leonardo da Vinci competition, CERN scientists and the Media, to make scientific truth for the benefit of mankind prevail and to enforce civil laws to defend the interest of the citizen. Irrefutable data 1 from the World Health Organization (WHO) and confirmed by other sources show that every year cancer is taking more lives prematurely 2 (6.5 million under 75 years of age), while malnutrition and child diseases are claiming 3.2 million lives among those 0-14 year 3 of age. The World Health Organization also predicts that the 6.5 million premature cancer deaths every year are expected to double in 20 years 4 if we do not act. Cancer’s current burden in global economic cost 5 of $1.4 trillion/year is also expected to increase significantly. If just half the money ($700 billion/year) from the global economic cost of cancer could be saved, it would be possible 6 to greatly reduce 7 malnutrition 8 in the world. Publish this letter on your website or blog, send it to your friends and to newspapers asking to publish the first page and the link to the entire letter. This letter also contains an answer to CERN scientists’ appeal to help understand what they called “crazy results” in measuring neutrino’s breaking the speed of light; for this reason the letter should be published. CERN and the media should continue this appeal and take responsibility for the “public scrutiny” they started, in order to come to a conclusion about the speed of light. Additionally, they should give the same attention/exposure to the legitimate cause of reducing premature cancer death and cost. D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

1

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A.1. Technological invention: I have invented a PET screening technology called 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) that is 400 times more efficient than the current 5,000 PET (Positron Emission Tomography) devices in capturing more signals at a lower cost per each valid signal captured from tumor markers. This improvement enables efficacious early cancer detection as well as the detection of other diseases traceable with a very low dose of radioisotope. My basic 9 invention 10 in particle detection consists of an innovative 3D-Flow powerful processing system that has the capability to accurately extract valuable information from data (radiation) arriving from thousands of channels at several million frames per second. Each frame can be processed for a time longer than the interval between two consecutive frames. This invention was formally recognized in 1993 by a major international review 11 at FERMIlab. Starting in the year 2000, I have added specific inventions 12 in the detector assembly, the photon detection algorithms, and the synergy among all components of medical imaging devices. These were submitted for public 13 scrutiny and recognized at several international public reviews (e.g. in 2003 14 and in 2008 15 ). At a public, transparent and open, scientific procedure 16 of the Leonardo da Vinci competition to identify the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis, the superiority 17 in efficiency in saving lives and reducing costs of my 3D-CBS 18 innovative technology was firmly established with scientific calculations and comparisons 19 to other projects, technologies, and approaches. No one could refute the evidence, even when compared to technologies from major research centers such as CERN, FERMIlab and BNL. The rules 20 of the competition, based on the results of an agreed-upon formula for efficiency that eliminated any possible favoritism, were finalized after months of input and comments at the international level. Because experimental data 21 show that early detection saves lives in 90% to 98% of the cases, the greater efficiency of the 3D-CBS is estimated to save at least 33% of lives of those currently dying prematurely of cancer within six years of operation, reaching 50% after ten years. (Results will be measured on a sample population in the age 22 bracket 45-69). A.2. Bending the curves: Implementing my 3D-CBS invention will bend 23 cancer’s exponential cost curve ( Figure 1) which has currently risen to 100 times 24 the cost of 50 years ago. (In comparison, during the same period, primary food increased only 4 times 25 , gasoline increased 10 times 26 and the U.S. National debt 27 47 times). The increased efficiency of the 3D-CBS can reduce the cancer mortality rate as shown in Figure 2, bending 28 the curve to cross the heart mortality rate. Besides helping to reduce U.S. Nat’l debt, a 50% reduction in cancer costs could be used to greatly reduce mortality rates from world malnutrition8 (See Figure 3).

Figure 1 Early cancer detection using the 3D-CBS device can drastically bend the exponential cost23 increase curve of cancer. Surgery for one time small tumor removal is significantly cheaper and has a higher success rate than prolonged painful expensive chemotherapy treatments.

Figure 2 The graph shows how a safe annual screening with the 3D-CBS device beginning in 2015 is expected to bend the curve of premature cancer mortality, reducing the number of cancer deaths in the U.S. in the age braket 50-74 for every 100,000 people when compared to heart disease. Source: U.S. CDC data until 2007. Estimated values from 2008 to 2025.

Figure 3 Bending the mortality curve from malnutrition and childhood diseases can be achieved with a 50% reduction in cancer cost, saving $700 billion/year. Only $8.8 billion/year would halve the number (178 million) of malnourished children 29 worldwide. The remaining could be used to plan eradication of malnutrition and reduce national health care cost. The figure shows estimated values.

A.3. What is needed: Pro bono professional assistance to ensure that scientific truth prevails in important decisions and pro bono assistance to enforce civil laws to defend the interest of citizens (cancer patients). Initial money from donations (of any amount one can give) is needed for the basic operation of this activity and for professional help in communication and presentation of this life-saving technology so that it will receive funding. However, it will be much easier to obtain funding if, now that the superiority of the 3DCBS technology has been firmly established17, institutions such as CERN, FERMIlab 30 , and BNL would take responsibility to implement the dialogue recommended by the CERN Director General in his speech at the workshop “Physics for Health” in 2010. A scientific organization such as CERN should always be open to progress. Because they could not refute the superiority of my invention in their specific field of particle detection, they should correct their statements regarding the Axial-PET 31 and other technologies, clearly stating that these products lack19 the efficiency and cost savings of the 3D-CBS18 technology. Otherwise, funding from the Madame Curie Association and other philanthropic organizations, as well as money from the layman, will continue to go to the Axial-PET and other projects that are known 32 not to reduce cancer death to the extent of the 3D-CBS. Everyone should support the change of the peer-review process to a true “public scrutiny” of scientific procedures as started recently by the Leonardo da Vinci competition16, by CERN scientists and the Media. Sign the petition to stop preventable deathsa. 2

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]  

Sign the petition to Stop Preventable Deaths

Pro bono assistance is needed to prevent pretentious claims from silencing scientific procedures and innovations that would benefit mankind. To the greatest extent possible, all entities (cancer organizations, religious organizations or anyone who values scientific procedures for the benefit of mankind and values the respect of others) should disseminate the projects’ comparison tables19, which show the impossibility of the Axial-PET and other projects and technologies to substantially reduce cancer death while demonstrating the superiority in efficiency and lower cost of the 3D-CBS technology. There is no reason to support and fund less efficient technologies. Pro bono assistance is needed from a large law firm (such as Jones Day in their program “Giving Back Worldwide 33 ”) to draft a contract to build 3D-CBS units targeted at early cancer detection to guarantee the implementation of the above. It should not be the usual contract between two parties as, say, between an inventor and a PET manufacturing company. This contract should guarantee the participation of all players who desire “to make the world a better place” (which is also the declared mission of The Giving Pledge) and, most importantly, the cancer patients to whom the contract should guarantee a return in reduction of cancer deaths. I have done my part by conceiving the inventions of a higher-efficiency, lower-cost cancer screening device, and by committing to donate 80% of the revenue from my patents to buy 3D-CBS units to donate to hospitals, and by providing free 3D-CBS screening examinations to low-income people. Professionals who are experts in contractual law could create a contract that would guarantee fairness to all parties while keeping in mind the goal of reducing cancer deaths and costs. They could also guarantee that in years to come the contract would not be breached nor its mission altered. My draft proposal, started during the meeting 34 at the Rectorate of the University of Pavia on September 20, 2010, between a member of Jones Day, the Vice President of the University of Pavia (a professor of economics) and other professionals, should continue. It was not intended to be merely a contract between myself and a PET manufacturer, but to involve all parties in order to create a maximum benefit to cancer patients. The contract should also guarantee that part of the savings from the reduction of the costs of cancer in the world should go toward the eradication of malnutrition. It would be beneficial to all people who believe in a civil world if people like Sally Crawford, who was named the probono attorney of the year in 2003 and 2005 and who received the Frank J. Scurlock Award for outstanding pro bono work, would first announce the existence of this noble cause of reducing cancer deaths and costs, seek support at her University lectures and among the several groups where she is the Director, and assign this effort the urgent priority that it deserves. The objectives of the pro bono lawyers who are available to work on this cause would be a) to promote and enforce laws that protect the interest of the patient, b) to remove obstacles and/or attempts to silence scientific truth to the benefit of citizens, and c) to define a contract to implement the 3D-CBS technology targeted to early cancer detection by building the first three units at a cost of $15 million. I am certain that many professionals from many firms would be glad to contribute their expertise to this cause. In order to reduce the discrepancy between the high global cost of cancer of $1.4 trillion/year and the meager results of only 5% cancer death reduction during the past 50 years, it is necessary to create and support a petition (http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-preventable-deaths.html) proposing a bill that would also reduce the deficit in different countries and save thousands of lives from premature cancer death by asking those who raise money to fight cancer, what they will provide in return in terms of reduction of cancer death and cost. (A separate request for funding and budget should address the issue to assist patients in their terminal phase or any other cancer project that is not targeted to reduce premature cancer death). Cancer associations (or Governments) who asks for money to fight cancer (or the Government that uses taxpayers dollars) should provide a link to a document describing the project that is aiming to reduce premature cancer death. The bill should request the following: “Each project should provide an estimate supported by scientific arguments of the percentage of cancer death reduction the project expects to attain, how much the project costs, when the first result can be expected, and the plan to measure results on a sample population of say 10,000 people in the age group 50 to 75 taken from a location where in the previous 20 years the death rate was constant (e.g. 0.5%). It should also be compared to other projects that claim superiority in efficiency or which are in the top ten projects claiming highest efficiency in percentage of cancer death reduction. Contributors to this project for creating a better world should be guaranteed a fair return for their donations or investments. (Donors would be rewarded with public recognition and by a guarantee of the implementation of a plan for the reduction in premature cancer death; investors would be guaranteed that their money would not be lost.) Millions of people give generously to make the world a better place. Once institutions such as CERN, Fermilab and BNL take responsibility and officially recognize the progress demonstrated by the irrefutable calculations that show the superiority in efficiency and low cost of the 3D-CBS technology, the $15 million required to build three 3D-CBS units would be raised in no time. D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

3

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

B. ANALYSES OF CANCER AND MALNUTRITION: THE TWO MOST URGENT CALAMITIES AND HOW THEIR TRENDS CAN BE REVERSED.

1. Cancer is the #1 killer4 taking prematurely (younger than 75 years of age) 6.5 million lives/year; and this number will double in 20 years if we do not act. (Source: World Health Organization. See also slides 3-5 of the seminar 35 ). 2. The Global Economic Cost of Cancer5 is approximately $1.4 trillion per year. (Source: American Cancer Society and LiveStrong). 3. Just half of the money that could be saved ($700 billion/year) from cancer’s annual Global economic burden could substantially reduce malnutrition in the world. Although theoretically $700 billion/year will be sufficient to completely eliminate malnutrition in the world for 7 billion people (based on data provided by an article7 published by Spero News on November 25, 2009, which estimates $100/year is required per malnourished person), practically, the organization of the distribution of the food might cost more than the food or in some cases it may even be impossible to reach the beneficiaries. However, $700 billion/year should be sufficient to eliminate more than 50% of the world’s deaths from malnutrition. (See the reports by Save the Children that every year 3.1 million children die8 from malnutrition-related causes and their eight-steps to tackle the problem6). 4. Cancer mortality was reduced by a mere 5% over the past 50 years (when two specific years are taken into consideration 1975 and 2007 cancer mortality in the U.S. increased 36 by 20% according to SEERNCI-NIH), while in contrast during the same period, heart disease mortality fell by 64%, stroke declined by 74% and flu and pneumonia by 58% (as reported 37 by The New York Times on April 24, 2009). 5. For the past 65 years 38 there have been the same false advertisements and false alarms about breakthroughs that can cure cancer and announcements about thousands of miracle cures which weren’t 39 . By now we should realize that these advertisements about the existence of cancer cures were targeted to feed the cancer business, and in several cases it was known in advance that the money spent would not provide a return in reduction of premature cancer deaths. We cannot continue doing the same thing, expecting a different result. (Einstein’s definition of “insanity”). Money should not be wasted on projects that cannot calculate in advance an estimate of their expected results in reducing cancer deaths and costs, and that have not shown superiority when compared to other projects. If there were a cure for cancer, the rich and famous who have died of cancer would have been able to use their power and money to buy a few more years of life. (see slides 79 and 80 of the seminar 40 ). 6. The proof that cancer research is heading in the wrong direction is shown in the table 41 which has gathered data from official sources of 124,000 cancer research projects (far from being the total number) from 1986 onward, which have been funded for a total of $37 billion. In spite of this huge investment, a significant reduction of premature cancer deaths has not been achieved as shown in the publication 42 by NCI on data gathered by the World Health Organization and adapted by the American Cancer society. See slides 51-54 of the seminar41). 7. Experimental data shows that early21 detection 43 saves lives in 90% to 98% of the cases (Source SEERNCI-NIH and Fortune Magazine). 8. Cancer is a disease characterized by the mutation of normal body cells into cancerous cells (Source NCI-NIH, See Slides 22-24 of the seminar 44 ). 9. Cancerous cells provide signals when they start their mutation from normal cells into cancerous cells. Such signals relate to changes in: odor, temperature, conductivity, long chain fatty acid (LCFA), fluorescence, Diffusion-Weighted Imaging (DWI), tissue density, perfusion, metabolism, etc. (See slide 25 of the seminar 45 ) 4

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

Analysis of cancer and malnutrition: the two most urgent calamities and how the trends can be reversed

10. Among these signals, the one most reliable and useful for early cancer detection (also inducing fewer “false positives” and “false negatives” after being confirmed by other signals and ultimately from biopsy) is the change in metabolism that provides information at the molecular level before the tumor becomes visible due to morphological changes. Cancer cells consume from 5 to 70 times more nutrients than normal cells (metabolism). The changes can be tracked through signals generated from radioisotopes associated with the molecules of the nutrient that we simply call here “tumor markers.” (Source: NCI-NHI and Oak Ridge Inst. For Science. See slides 28-33 of the seminar 46 ) 11. Currently about 5,000 PET (or PET/CT) devices (Positron Emission Tomography) costing about $2 million each, are inefficient, capturing only about 1 out of 10,000 signals emitted from the tumor markers administered to the patient, and they focus on measuring the wrong variable: spatial resolution to the detriment of efficiency in capturing as many signals as possible from tumor markers. Because current PET devices miss 9,999 signals out of 10,000 signals emitted from the tumor markers, they require high radiation doses and can only detect medium to large tumors which require a high concentration of nutrient carrying the tumor marker. Their inability to detect small changes in metabolism of small tumors and the requirement of a high radiation does make them unsuitable for early cancer detection and for screening. See reference 47 to articles from universities, industries and research centers and slides 37-39 and slides 51-54 of the seminar. 12. It would make more sense to capture more photons as shown in slide 37 of the seminar 48 . Since the radioisotope associated with the molecule of nutrient is injected into the blood stream which is disseminated throughout the body, a PET device should cover most of the body (like a barrel of detectors surrounding the patient) in order to capture as many signals (photons) emitted from the tumor markers as possible, not just a few from a short ring 16 cm long (Field of View –FOV) like the current PET. These details are summarized in “the need to increase the efficiency of PET devices, in capturing more signals from the tumor markers at a lower cost per signal captured.” 13. My inventions in particle detection for which I received 49 the Leonardo da Vinci Award 50 allows for the construction of devices such as the 3D-CBS that captures 400 times more signals from tumor markers at a lower cost per signal captured than current 5,000 PET devices. The basis of this invention10 that also provides advantages in discovering new particles in High Energy Physics at a lower cost per each experiment was already formally recognized on December 14, 1993, by a major international scientific public review11 when I presented it at the FERMIlab auditorium before hundreds of scientists. A panel of experts from CERN, universities and industries were charged 51 to continue the review in a deeper study for the entire day and concluded with a positive report stating. “…given this feature [referring to my 3D-Flow 52 architecture], experimenters would probably think of clever uses not now possible” … and assigned all available funding from the closeout of the Superconducting Super Collider –SSC- ($150,000) to “…complete the current development and leave the project in a state where it could be continued…” in the future under a different budget. The recognition that my invention is a breakthrough is confirmed by leaders from major 53 research 54 laboratories and by the Head of the Computing Division at FERMIlab, in a letter 55 dated February 27, 1995, stating that “it is the only detailed study demonstrating feasibility of executing several level-1 trigger algorithms of different experiments” which means: an invention that enables the discovery of new particles and the detection of any particles because of its programmability and its architecture that breaks the speed barrier of ECL 56 , GaAs 57 , and other fast and expensive electronics used in these applications before my invention. The same values were also recognized in a letter dated November 5, 1993, by the Head of the Electronics of the SDC experiment at SSC (who is now the Deputy spokesman 58 of the Atlas experiment at CERN) when he “strongly” endorsed my invention “as a technique to perform fast, programmable triggers”. D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

5

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

14. To this basic invention, I added other specific inventions12 (detector assembly, algorithms, etc.) in the field of medical imaging. I spent all my resources to simulate the entire system and presented it in two articles 59 and one book 60 in 2000 at the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Lyon (France). I built the proof of concept in hardware, first in two prototype 61 boards with 4 processors each, that I presented 62 in 2001 at the international IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in San Diego (CA), and in 2003 I built (in a technology-independent platform) two industrialized IBM PC modular boards 63 with 68 processors each (suitable to be replicated to build a system) that were presented in two 64 articles 65 at the IEEENSS-MIC conference in Portland (OR). In 2006 my entire system development (including the two working prototype boards) was inspected by ABO Project (see the questionnaire 66 they compiled and signed assessing the merit and advantages of my inventions) in a four day visit to the labs where the equipment was being tested, and 17 hours of meetings (all video recorded) held in the offices of Jones Day at 2727 North Harwood St., Dallas. It was compared with commercial PET products with an in depth discussion with leaders of the main manufacturing 67 companies who not only could not find flaws in my approach, but had to change the statement they made in 2002 that it was impossible to improve the efficiency of their PET. In fact, after our meeting they were able to improve the efficiency by 70% as announced later on their website. My invention was further verified at several other international reviews such as the ones in 200314 and 200815. It has been supported by scientists and professionals 68 and in the proof of concept 69 built in hardware. It also received visibility in publications in 1999 70 , 2008 71 in scientific peer review journals, and at international conferences 72 . In spite of these recognitions and demonstration in hardware of the working proof of concept, funding went to other less efficient projects that could not provide early cancer detection, that require the administration of a high radiation dose to the patient, and a high examination cost. 15. Philanthropists and people 73 who want to help with the fight against cancer have asked me for some recognition from CERN or other institutions, reasoning that if CERN gave an award to the Axial-PET project in 2010, then it must be better and more worthwhile to fund than mine (in fact the Madame Curie Association funded the Axial-PET project and not the 3D-CBS project). The most logical action was to address the issue with experts58 in the field asking them how they justify focusing on measuring spatial resolution on PET instead of focusing on efficiently capturing as many signals as possible (photons in this specific case) from tumor markers. PET devices operate by detecting information (counting signals from tumor markers within a unit of time) related to metabolism. To my surprise, the methodology used to address scientific issues seems to have changed at FERMIlab since 1993. Now the answers 74 , focusing on spatial measurements with PET instead of efficiency, given by experts from FERMIlab are not supported by scientific arguments, and, so far FERMIlab does not seems to want to resolve scientific issues openly through a dialogue with experts as occurred in December 1993, but they prefer silencing the scientific truth by closing the Leonardo da Vinci web site which seeks to implement a public scientific procedure. 16. I have had many discussions focusing on measuring PET parameters 75 , including whether it is better to focus 76 on spatial resolution or efficiency with several experts58 in the field at several International Conferences and at major research laboratories in the world (CERN, FERMIlab, BNL, etc.), not least in a 90 minute discussion with CERN’s Scientific Director on January 12, 2011. Many cancer patients, philanthropists, over 1,600 people73 who signed an online petition and over 7,000 who signed a paper petition who want to know the best project for capturing signals from tumor markers, continue to ask me what the CERN Scientific Director’s words were in this regard during our conversation. In this case, I have been asking the CERN Scientific Director to address the issues of our conversation on January 12, 2011, with other experts in the field as occurred on December 14, 1993, at FERMIlab, but I am still waiting for a response. It is time for reviewers, applicants and leaders in the field to take responsibility before science and before taxpayers (in a public debate, as SSC Director requested in 1993) and show that they are competent in making calculations demonstrating that one project yields better results than another. 6

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

Analysis of cancer and malnutrition: the two most urgent calamities and how the trends can be reversed

17. The reason why I have provided information regarding discussions I have had over the past decades with top experts58 and leaders in the field is in order to answer questions that I receive from many cancer patients and people73 who believe in these experts and decision makers who spend their taxpayer and/or donation funds. The key issue to resolving any technical problem and to prevent any favoritism is to let the “JUDGE” be the result of a formula 77 . (This was the procedure 78 used in the Leonardo da Vinci Competition which requested information to be sent to the public through several Press Releases to thousands of outlets 79 during its four important phases of a) defining the rules, b) being open to any projects supported by scientific arguments, c) requesting authors of each project to support claims of the superiority of their project compared to the others and d) requesting the public to compare projects and help to identify the one with greater potential to reduce premature cancer death). In this specific case regarding the PET diagnostic imaging device, the issue is to determine whether focusing76 primarily on increasing PET spatial resolution or focusing on PET efficiency and cost is more beneficial to the cancer patient. All entries to the Leonardo da Vinci competition were publicly scrutinized and the 3D-CBS device, focusing primarily on increasing efficiency and reducing costs, was found to have the highest potential to reduce premature cancer deaths. While increasing spatial resolution does not by itself decrease efficiency (in fact my 3D-CBS innovative technology can increase both spatial resolution and efficiency), the other approaches increase spatial resolution to the detriment of efficiency and cost. This is why it is important to address the tables in slides 68, 71 and 73 of the seminar 80 . Authors of these projects, and the decision makers who fund them, need to provide scientific arguments to justify to donors and taxpayers the money spent for values in rows “b” “Efficiency” and “c”, “Cost per photon captured” showing CERN Axial-PET 81 , FERMIlab TOF-PET 82 and BNL-PET 83 with lower efficiency and higher cost compared to the 3DCBS 84 . Articles provided by these authors make it impossible to justify the money spent on the first three projects, when there exists the 3D-CBS that is vastly more efficient having a lower cost per signal from the tumor marker captured. For example, the figure of the “block detector” shown in slide 67 of the seminar 85 (which is one of the 1050 elements needed to build an Axial-PET with 150 cm FOV) shows a conceptual design flaw, which forces them to surround the patient with many small expensive crystals and sensors as shown in rows “p”, “q”, “r”, “s”, “t” and “u” of slide 69 of the seminar 86 . The low efficiency is caused by sensors, cables and connectors that are in the way of the photon trajectory and cannot be detected. No one could refute that the 3D-CBS project had an higher efficiency of 0.1 compared to 0.035 for Axial-PET, 0.01 for BNL and 0.012 for FERMIlab-TOP-PET, likewise the 3DCBS had a relative lower cost per photon captured of $0.1 versus $4.03 for Axial-PET, $12.25 for BNL-PET and $25,94 for FERMIlab TOT-PET. Based on these irrefutable scientific arguments that no one could refute, the prize was assigned to my 3D-CBS innovative technology. See minutes17 of the five hour public meeting comparing entries to the Leonardo da Vinci competition. 18. The revolution needed is to pursue the objective of reducing cancer death and cost with technical logical reasoning by only promoting, supporting, and funding solutions that have the higher potential to achieve this objective 87 (as stated by professionals from the university, hospitals, Jones Day, etc. during the meeting34 at the University of Pavia on September 20, 2011). For example, it would be unthinkable to fund and build a bridge if calculations on the design show that it could not support the desired load of a car, pickup or an 18-wheeler. The same goes for an airplane whose calculation show that it cannot fly, or the design of a ship that will sink. Why then are designs such as CERN AxialPET81, FERMIlab TOF-PET82, BNL-PET83 funded (even just the basic brick of the “block detector” or the concept of focusing on spatial resolution with FERMIlab TOF-PET and small crystals with BNL-PET) if calculations show the cost would be exorbitant, the efficiency low, the required radiation dose hazardous and the project therefore useless in reducing premature cancer death and cost? Support the change of the peer-review process to a true “public scrutiny” of scientific procedures as started recently by CERN scientists. Sign the petition to stop preventable deathsa. D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

7

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

TABLE OF CONTENT A.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 2  A.1. TECHNOLOGICAL INVENTION: ..................................................................................................................... 2  A.2. BENDING THE CURVES: ............................................................................................................................... 2  A.3. WHAT IS NEEDED: ....................................................................................................................................... 2  B.  ANALYSES OF CANCER AND MALNUTRITION: THE TWO MOST URGENT CALAMITIES AND HOW THEIR TRENDS CAN BE REVERSED. ...................................................................................................... 4  C.  DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THESE CALAMITIES AND HOW TO REVERSE THE TRENDS .................. 10  C.1. REQUEST BY JONES DAY TO LIST WHAT IS NEEDED TO EFFICACIOUSLY ADDRESS THE CANCER PROBLEM . 10  C.2. THE DREAM OF MANY PEOPLE TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE ...................................................... 11  C.3. THE WORLD’S MOST URGENT NEEDS ......................................................................................................... 13  C.3.1  List of top diseases causing premature death ..................................................................................... 13  C.3.2  Stop preventable death from cancer through early detection: the cancer death rate is not declining despite 65 years of false advertising to the contrary. Innovations in early detection that could turn statistics around are crushed .............................................................................................................. 15  C.3.2.1  Bending the curve of the premature cancer death .....................................................................................18 

C.3.3  Reduce the wasteful spending on cancer that does not produce results: Global Economic Cost of Cancer is $1.4 trillion per year. ......................................................................................................... 19  C.3.3.1  Bending the curve of the Health Care Cost ...............................................................................................20 

C.3.4  Stop preventable deaths from malnutrition: Saving 50% on Cancer Costs can be used to significantly reduce global malnutrition ................................................................................................................. 21  C.4. WHAT HAS WORKED IN PHILANTHROPY AND WHAT HAS NOT .................................................................... 22  C.5. THE LOGICAL STEPS TO IDENTIFYING THE MOST EFFICACIOUS SOLUTION AND TO HELP REMOVE OBSTACLES 23  C.5.1  Support scientific procedures to identify solutions with highest potential to reduce premature cancer death 23  C.5.1.1  Summary of the advantages of the innovative 3D-CBS technology compared to the over 5,000 PET in use currently .............................................................................................................................................25  C.5.1.2  Awarding the best technology/invention ..................................................................................................27 

C.5.2  Remove the obstacles to the dissemination of this scientific procedure ............................................. 28  C.5.3  Change the peer-review process to “public scrutiny” where reviewers of articles and projects needing funding should provide scientific arguments for their rejection or approval of the most efficient solution to make progress beneficial to mankind prevail when compared to other projects 29  C.5.3.1  Proof that I built and tested electronics in hardware in 2003 which is hundreds of times more accurate than the 2008 electronics designed for the OPERA experiment and used for measuring breaking the speed of light ............................................................................................................................................32  C.5.3.1  The need for the Media to inform the public of the results of the “public scrutiny” started by OPERA collaboration, and of the Leonardo da Vinci competition which addresses the much more important issue of 6.5 million people who die prematurely from cancer every year. The media should provide a link to all the comments/questions submitted to OPERA, to the answers/responses from an OPERA Spokesperson, and similar links to the comments/questions and answers from the winner of the Leonardo da Vinci Competition and the scientific evidence of the solution that has superior efficiency, lower cost, and greater benefits for mankind .....................................................................................................................33 

8

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

Table of Content

C.6. WHO SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR GETTING RESULTS? .................................................................. 35  C.6.1  Responsibility should be taken by those who finance this field: THE CITIZENS with their tax-dollars and THE PHILANTHROPISTS with their donations ......................................................................... 35  C.6.2  Sign a petition to create laws and regulations asking those who raise money to fight cancer what you will get in return in terms of reduction of cancer deaths and costs. ................................................... 37  C.7. WHAT YOU CAN DO TO REALIZE THE DREAM: YOU NEED TO STAND UNITED AS AN UNBREAKABLE BUNDLE OF STICKS TO SHOW YOUR COURAGE BY STANDING UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT, FOR SCIENCE, AND FOR THE TRUTH THAT WILL MAKE EVERYONE FREE ............................................................................................................ 38  C.7.1  A few examples of specific issues that need pro bono assistance ....................................................... 41  C.7.1.1  FERMIlab silencing the truth to the benefit of mankind ...........................................................................41  C.7.1.2  CPRIT “Triaged out” Beneficial Project...................................................................................................42  C.7.1.3  NIH Program Manager’s answer “you should make reviewers’ happy” instead of asking them to support with scientific arguments their rejection claims ........................................................................................42  C.7.1.4  Axial-PET, FERMIlab TOF-PET, BNL-PET Magic-Box, etc. ................................................................43 

C.7.2  Evidence that reviewers and decision makers do not fund projects that reduce cancer deaths ......... 43  C.7.3  How pro bono assistance from professionals, media and advocacy groups can make a difference... 45  C.7.3.1  Pro bono attorneys have the important role to guarantee the enforcement of laws protecting the interests of the citizens (in particular of patients) ...................................................................................................45  C.7.3.2  Example of what an attorney can do .........................................................................................................45  C.7.3.3  Scientists should take responsibility and change peer-review to “public scrutiny” ..................................46  C.7.3.4  The media has an important role in making scientists accountable in a public peer-review procedure. They should publish the links to the review and publish results. ..............................................................46  C.7.3.5  Actions by citizens: Advocacy groups, request for hearings, submission to science and technology committees ................................................................................................................................................46 

C.7.4  Disclaimer: I hope funding for research and education can be increased, but leaders and scientists who do not follow scientific procedures should be identified and their errors corrected, or they should be replaced .............................................................................................................................. 47  C.8. A PRACTICAL SOLUTION TO THE WORST CALAMITY, CANCER, AND HOW TO ABATE MALNUTRITION (AND SOLVE MANY OTHER PROBLEMS) IN THE WORLD WITH MONEY SAVED FROM REDUCING CANCER’S ECONOMICAL BURDEN ............................................................................................................................... 53 

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

9

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

C. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THESE CALAMITIES AND HOW TO REVERSE THE TRENDS C.1. Request by Jones Day to list what is needed to efficaciously address the cancer problem On August 5, 2011, I had a two-hour meeting with Robert Turner from Jones Day, where I related to him information about projects and technologies 88 analyzed as possible venues to provide the highest potential to reduce premature cancer death and costs from major industries, research laboratories and universities that have been compared 89 in a public13, transparent, open competition 90 sponsored by prestigious universities, hospitals, public administrations and philanthropists. The rules20 of the competition were finalized after months of input and comments at the international level, followed by several 91 press releases13 to 6,000 outlets (newspapers, TV, Radio, online newspapers, blogs, etc.), emails to tens of thousands of scientists, and a letter 92 sent by concerned citizens to all 435 members of the Congress and 100 Senators asking them to write 93 to the leaders in particle physics to support a Public Scientific Procedure to identify solutions with the highest potential using particle physics to reduce cancer death and cost. On March 23, 2011, a letter 94 from nine scientists and professionals was sent to President Barack Obama and leaders of the major U.S. research laboratories requesting decision makers and experts in particle physics to support the objective of the Leonardo da Vinci competition targeted to identify with unbiased scientific arguments the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis, and to point out any project in any field, based on solid scientific arguments, that has a high potential to reduce premature cancer death. Each entry submitted or nominated to the Leonardo da Vinci competition, which included major research laboratories such as CERN, BNL and FERMIlab, was subjected to hours of rigorous scientific scrutiny and public debate via internet live web-TV broadcasting (and via EVO System by CaltecUSA) from the University of Pavia, Italy (documented in the minutes17 of the five hours meeting on June 8, 2011). After hearing that my 3D-CBS innovative project18 was declared49 the winner 95 based on results 96, 89, of an agreed upon formula 97 for efficiency (adopted to eliminate any possible favoritism), thus demonstrating the superiority of my project in saving lives and reducing cost, Mr. Turner said he was aware of this (that no one could refute my claims with scientific arguments) and just needed to inform others at Jones Day. I requested he relate this news to Sally Crawford and Steve Fluckiger of Jones Day both of whom I have known and worked with for more than a decade through my innovations. Because of their active interest in supporting pro bono and humanitarian causes, I asked to meet with them to discuss how we could collectively contribute using our specific areas of expertise to create a greater impact in reducing cancer death and cost Mr. Turner said that he would talk to them, but in a subsequent phone conversation on August 26, 2011, after talking with Ms. Crawford, he asked me to write to them (Ms Crawford, Mr. Fluckiger and himself) describing what needed to be done and what could be accomplished before setting up a meeting. I explained most of his request in a one hour seminar 98 that I presented in Dallas on August 21, 2011. It received an enthusiastic 99 response and numerous favorable testimonials 100 from the audience, followed by an interesting Q&A session. I will do my best to summarize it here. I do, however, feel it 10

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The dream of many people to make the world a better place

would be a good strategy to help organize additional seminars like the August 21st event, and attend one of these meetings where questions from the audience can be addressed together. I took Mr. Turner’s suggestion, and because I have encountered many people helping with humanitarian causes (some are close friends or relatives, others I have heard about on the news following their public declarations), I thought I would share with all of you my dream which I believe to be also your dream (as I can deduce from your statements and/or actions) to make a positive impact for humanity in the deadliest and costliest calamity to society before departing this planet. In light of the data regarding the causes of PREMATURE death in the world provided by the World Health Organization for 2004, 2008 etc., I would like to ask you to provide your list of priorities so that we may share them with others (notice that in my analysis of this data below I point out that we all must die one day, but everyone deserves to live a healthy and dignified life at least to the average age of 76 for a man and 80 for a woman). This is particularly important if pro bono work and actions must be coordinated in order to optimize results. We should not forget causes like cancer and malnutrition that kill more people prematurely than war or any other calamity or disease, while at the same time every effort should be made not to hurt other noble causes that take less premature victims. A service that everyone including pro bono coordinators, cancer specific or religious organizations can help with, is spreading the information contained in this letter regarding the causes that have the highest number of premature victims, the greatest suffering, the highest economic burden per year, and the most efficient solution to reduce the highest cause of premature preventable death and reduce cost. Those who truly want to contribute to solving these problems cannot ignore it, or they should point out additional information that would help us understand higher priorities. In this way the awareness of the most urgent calamities will reach everyone. Let’s all have the courage to follow our hearts and minds and do the right thing for each and every one of us, believing that civil laws exist to improve society, to guarantee respect, and to dignifying our lives. Let’s believe these same civil laws can prevail with dialogue, and ultimately be enforced because large law firms and institutions are in place to act as guarantors, and religious organizations are there to teach the golden rule 101 . The truth, respect for others, and dialogue will lead us to identifying the solution that will have the greatest impact on reducing premature deaths and costs and reduce suffering in the world. World deaths by age, sex and cause for several years are reported by the World Health Organization. Table I and Table II. (See also the list in slides 5 and 6 of the seminar 102 ). C.2. The dream of many people to make the world a better place Many of you, some whom I have known for over 50 years, have chosen to dedicate your lives to helping others live a dignified life (i.e. food on the table and respect as human beings). Others of you are generous with your time and resources to help in the material or spiritual aspect of life to improve the dignity of human beings. For this reason I believe that I should address this letter to you because the list below should make everyone believe that we are all interested in finding the most effective way to make a positive impact on mankind with our efforts for a better world now and for future generations. D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

11

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

12

‐

My cousin Sister Vilma Tallone dedicates her life to helping others. While in Africa she oversaw education for the poor and administered medical care to the sick and dying, running the risk herself of contracting a fatal disease. She is now the General Councilor for Administration of 14,000 Sisters of the Daughters of Mary Help of Christians Congregation.

‐

My friends don Carlo Semeria and don Silvio Ruffino have spent many years working in a mission in Brazil and in parishes in the mountains of Italy.

‐

Father Cesar Falletti whom I have known for over 40 years renounced his family’s wealth and is leading a Monastic lifestyle in order to heal hearts and spirits by teaching that the truth will set one free.

‐

Sally Crawford, and professionals like her, who dedicates part of her life to educating young lawyers with lectures at universities, encouraging them to practice pro bono work for good causes in order to better guarantee laws that are respected and to create rules for a more civilized world for everyone.

‐

Steve Fluckiger who works to establish multi-billion dollar contracts where the rights of all parties are guaranteed fairly.

‐

Robert Turner who in addition to his professional work, teaches at a university on how to protect intellectual properties that will foster innovations and progress.

‐

Mariangela and Enrico Buzzi 103 who as philanthropists support several humanitarian causes, and who supported with a donation and with their presence on October 28, 2010, the debate at the University of Pavia, (Italy) to identify the technology with the highest potential to reduce cancer death and cost.

‐

Patrizia Fischer, Roberto Vaio of the Cultural Association Leonardo Palace in Turin and Laura Camis de Fonseca from the Camis de Fonseca Foundation, who hosted a seminar addressing the issue of reducing cancer death and cost at Palazzo Leonardo in Turin (Italy), organized and lead by the journalist Gianluca Gobbi from Radio Flash (he also conducted over 16 hours of radio broadcast informing listeners of the need with accountability to reduce cancer death and cost).

‐

Vincenzo Vigna, who has tirelessly offered his support to make science prevail for the benefit of mankind by organizing and chairing public open debates, scientific reviews and soliciting decision makers to take the necessary actions that would lead to better health care, and the reduction of suffering, premature deaths, and healthcare costs. And all scientists and professionals (in particular Ruben Sonnino) who participated at these public debates, and who wrote to decision makers inviting them to address the issue.

‐

Vanna Sereno and all the supporters who have created awareness of the need to reduce premature cancer death and cost through Facebook, press releases, articles, emails, and signatures both online petitions, and paper petitions, etc.

‐

Ultimately also Billionaire philanthropists Bill Gates, Warrant Buffet, etc. who I do not know personally, but who have made public written statements together with 67 other wealthy people in The Giving Pledge 104 of their intent to donate over 50% of their fortune for humanitarian causes (in the case of Warren Buffet up to 99%). Read their letters to know how each one has: “pledged to give the majority of their wealth to philanthropy.”

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The world’s most urgent needs

C.3. The world’s most urgent needs We must agree that the most urgent calamity is the one which is taking more premature lives every year and has the highest cost. We must agree to unite to create the strength necessary to identify the most cost-effective solution to reduce cancer death and cost, and not be silenced by those who do not want to hear the truth about the ineffectiveness of current treatments. What follows demonstrates how it is possible to fulfill the dreams of those who want to make a difference, and how cancer patients and citizens, who now just accept their tax burden without seeing a return, will benefit from more lives saved and at a lower cost. C.3.1 List of top diseases causing premature death World deaths by age, sex and cause as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO). Table I shows the list of the top diseases causing premature deaths (0 to 69 years of age) in the world that were extracted from the 2008 report by the World Health Organization. Full details of the data can be found in the referenced original document. Mortality rate by cause of death rank, from the highest (4.3 million death/year) to lowest (0.06 million death/year) in the following sequence: cancer, heart disease, accidents, respiratory infections, cerebro-vascular disease, diarrhea, HIV/AIDS, respiratory disease, digestive diseases, tuberculosis, malaria, diabetes, wars and civil conflict and Alzheimer-Parkinson-MS. Analyzing the first four causes of death: cancer, heart disease, malnutrition and accidents, one can determine that more premature deaths from cancer and malnutrition can be prevented than premature deaths due to heart disease and accidents. The reasons are the following: Irrefutable data demonstrate that early cancer detection can save lives in 90% to 98% of the cases while reducing at the same time cost because surgery for a one time small tumor removal is significantly cheaper and has a higher success rate than prolonged painful expensive chemotherapy treatments; to save a life from malnutrition, just $0.33 per day per person is needed with a probability of success close to 100%; in contrast, cutting in half the number of premature deaths from heart disease is unlikely because its mortality has been already cut more than in half during the past 50 years and because we are not aware of new breakthroughs in this field; similarly there are no known solutions to halve deaths from accidents unless one invests huge sums of money to improve viability and educating drivers in the world. These determinations lead us to conclude that among the top causes of premature deaths, we can have the highest impact in premature death reduction for cancer and malnutrition. Next, we must decide how to achieve these goals at a minimum cost; since we already know that early cancer detection saves lives and reduce cost (while expensive chemotherapy treatments did not change significantly the mortality rate during the past 50 years), money and lives could be saved by focusing on early cancer detection. Let’s remember that we should look at premature cancer death and not TOTAL deaths. If for example 60% of the world population dies at 99 years of age from heart disease and 40% from influenza at 35 years of age (like three of my relatives who died 90 years ago from the Spanish flu) would you focus on curing heart disease or influenza? In fact, the problem of Spanish influenza was addressed when aiming to reduce premature mortality and has been almost completely resolved. At some point we all D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

13

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

must die -one organ has to fail- but we need to focus on the organ (or disease) that fails at an age younger than a woman’s life expectancy of 80 and of 76 for a man. See also slide 5 of the seminar102. Table I -World main causes of premature deaths (0 to 69 years of age) for the year 2008. (Source: World Health Organization).

Table II World death rates per 100,000 people for age 0-69 in 2008.

When the age22 group 45-69 is taken into consideration (see Table III), cancer is shown to be the leading cause of death with 3.55 million deaths/year in the world. (Compare this with the data in Table VI reporting mortality for the group age from 0-14. In this age group death from malnutrition is leading with 3.2 million deaths/year). Table III - World main causes of premature deaths (45 to 69 years of age) for the year 2008. (Source: World Health Organization)

14

Table IV World death rates per 100,000 people for age 45-69 in 2008

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

Why would anyone continue doing the same thing, but expecting different results?

C.3.2 Stop preventable death from cancer through early detection: the cancer death rate is not declining despite 65 years of false advertising to the contrary. Innovations in early detection that could turn statistics around are crushed Why would anyone continue doing the same thing, but expect a different result? (This is Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity. See slide 79 of the seminar40). Wouldn’t you think that if the advertisements that we hear on TV and see in print media (see Figure 4) for the past 65 years (“it looks good…”, “now we have the cure for cancer…”) were true, the power and money of famous and/or powerful people who have died of cancer would have bought themselves a few more years of life? (See slide 80 of the seminar40). If decision makers have known for 65 years that early detection works, why hasn’t my 3D-CBS innovative technology received funding? Because of its 400 times efficiency improvement compared to the current 5,000 PET (or PET/CT), it is much safer and efficacious for early cancer detection.

Figure 4. Excerpt from National Geographic 1946 (See slide 19 of the seminar9).

Articles do appear in prestigious journals and newspapers reporting the truth: that announcements of miracle cures are misleading as either they just prolong the life for a few months or they affect a very small percentage of a specific type of cancer, so that there would not be any significant change even if the cure were extended to a larger population. They support experimental data that shows mortality rates have not decreased significantly over the past 50 years, and are the reason why famous and powerful people have been unable to extend their life by more than a few months using all the latest drugs, therapies, techniques, and “cures” that are advertised. D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

15

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

Examples of these articles have also been printed by top cancer and health care organizations such as the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, and World Health Organization: Figure 5 reports data published37 by The New York Times on April 24, 2009 which shows that cancer mortality was reduced by a mere 5% over the past 50 years, while in contrast, during the same period, heart disease mortality fell by 64%, stroke declined by 74% and flu and pneumonia by 58%. These data show that cancer mortality from 1975 to 2007 increased by 20%. Figure 5 Cancer death Still Steady Figure 6 reports data relative to the leading causes of death in the U.S. 1975 vs. 2007 published36 by the Surveillance Epidemiology End Result of the National Cancer Institute.

Figure 6 Cancer death is increasing. Source: SEER-NCI 16

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected] 

Data demonstrate that money used to fight cancer is wasted 

Data in Figure 7 published42 by National Cancer Institute, gathered by World Health Organization and adapted by American Cancer Society demonstrate that money used to fight cancer is wasted. If the most industrialized countries e , with their annual cancer cost of $856 per capita, were getting their money’s worth, their cancer death rate would be lower than the less industrialized countries with a much lower cost for cancer per capita. Data reported in Figure 7 show this not to be true because the most industrialized countries are not located at the bottom of the figure.

Figure 7 - Data demonstrate that money used to fight cancer is wasted. The figure shows cancer mortality rates in the world for every 100,000 people. Source: World Health Organization (WHO), American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute. See the pencil numbers on the left indicating the most industrialized countries listed below which are spending $856/year per person that are not located at the bottom of the graph, thus demonstrating that money is wasted. e

  The  38  most  industrialized  countries  listed  by  the  Human  Development  Index  (HDI)  rank  from  highest  to  lowest:  1.  Norway,  2.  Australia, 3. Iceland, 4. Canada, 5. Ireland, 6. The Netherlands, 7. Sweden, 8. France, 9. Switzerland, 10. Japan, 11. Luxemburg, 12.  Finland,  13.  United  States,  14.  Austria,  15.  Spain,  16.  Denmark,  17.  Belgium,  18.  Italy,  19.  Liechtenstein,  20.  New  Zealand,  21.  United Kingdom, 22. Germany, 23.Singapore, 24. Hong Kong, 25. Greece, 26. South Korea, 27. Israel, 28. Andorra, 29. Slovenia, 30.  Brunei, 31. Kuwait, 32. Cyprus, 33. Qatar, 34. Portugal, 35. United Arab Emirates, 36. Czech Republic, 37. Barbados, 38. Malta. 

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

17

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

C.3.2.1

Bending the curve of the premature cancer death

As an example of how the mortality death curve could be bent, data for the mortality rate for heart diseases and cancer from 50 to 74 years of age for the years from a 1979 to 2025 for the U.S. have been taken into consideration. Those from 1979 to 2007 are from U.S. CDC, while those from 2008 to 2025 are estimated data. The increased efficiency of the 3D-CBS could reduce the cancer mortality rate as shown in Figure 8, bending 105 the curve to cross the heart mortality rate.

Figure 8 The graph shows how a safe annual screening with the 3D-CBS device beginning in 2015 is expected to bend the curve of premature cancer mortality, reducing the number of cancer deaths in the U.S. in the age braket 50-74 for every 100,000 people when compared to heart disease. Source: U.S. CDC data until 2007. Estimated values from 2008 to 2025.

18

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

Data demonstrate that money used to fight cancer is wasted 

C.3.3 Reduce the wasteful spending on cancer that does not produce results: Global Economic Cost of Cancer is $1.4 trillion per year. The $1.4 trillion/year Global Economic Cost of Cancer was calculated based on the Livestrong and American Cancer Society (ACS) report dated June 2010. On page 8 of the LiveStrong-ACS report5, cancer shows a global economic cost of $895 billion/year. On page 2 of the same report it states: “The total economic impact of premature death and disability from cancer worldwide was $895 billion in 2008. This figure represents 1.5 percent of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP). …This analysis did not include direct cancer medical costs, which would further increase the total economic cost caused by cancer”. This data can be found on page 3 of the 2010 ACS report 106 being $102.8 billion for the United States. (It also shows that cancer costs increased24 100 times during the past 50 years). We can estimate this additional direct cancer medical cost in Europe to be $160 billion, Japan’s at $55 billion, and for all other countries to be $200 billion, making a total global economical cancer cost of $1.4 trillion/year. A way of visualizing $1.4 trillion is to think of a stack of $100 bills that would be 1,150 miles high (or the distance from Dallas to Washington DC or from London to Cosenza, Italy), or spending $45,000 per second for one year. However, because of the increasing cost of cancer, next year you will have to spend $50,000 per second. See the table below how economic loss from cancer compares to the top 15 Global Causes of Death as reported by LiveStrong and the ACS. Table V – Economic loss from the Top 15 Global Causes of Death as reported by LiveStrong and the American Cancer Society. Cancer is the leading economic loss; if one adds direct medical cancer costs which are not included in this table, then the economic loss from cancer is even more staggering.

It is hard to ignore the top of this list and not want to dedicate some time and support to this problem so that efforts are more successful. Spending huge amounts of money on cancer without significant results in 50 years makes the cancer problem even more urgent because it will continue to impoverish everyone for the next 50 years and beyond. D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

19

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

C.3.3.1

Bending the curve of the Health Care Cost

Cancer costs have risen in the U.S. to 100 times24 the cost of 50 years ago. (In comparison, during the same period, primary food increased only 4 times25, gasoline increased 10 times26 and the U.S. National debt27 47 times). The increased efficiency of the 3D-CBS device can drastically bend the exponentially increasing cost23 increase curve of cancer. Surgery for one time small tumor removal is significantly cheaper and has a higher success rate than prolonged painful expensive chemotherapy treatments.

Figure 9 The economic cost of cancer in the U.S. compared to gasoline and the national debt. Source: NCI, American cancer Society. Bureau of the Public Debt, U.S. Treasury, Monthly Energy Review.

20

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

Data demonstrate that money used to fight cancer is wasted 

C.3.4 Stop preventable deaths from malnutrition: Saving 50% on Cancer Costs can be used to significantly reduce global malnutrition If just half of the money ($700 billion/year) from the global economic cost of cancer could be saved, it would be possible to greatly reduce malnutrition in the world. According to the organization Save the Children (as reported by Spero News7 on November 25, 2009), only $8.8 billion/year would be enough to halve the number (178 million) of malnourished children worldwide. The organization Save the Children has a detailed eight point action8 plan on how to tackle global child hunger. From this study one can deduce that $100/person per year ($8.8 billion/(178/2)) is enough to prevent one person from dying of hunger. This would mean that the entire earth population of 7 billion people will have a guarantee of not suffering from malnutrition with $700 billion/year savings ($100 x 7,000,000,000 = $700 billion). Realistically, because only a percentage of the world population is malnourished, a $700 billion savings from the global economic cost of cancer could not only enable the implementation of the $8.8 billion/year eight-point action plan to halve the number of malnourished children, but the remainder could be used to plan the eradication of world malnutrition and poverty (calculated from several studies needing $1/day to $2/day per person) and to reduce the National debt of several countries. Table VI - World main causes of premature deaths (0-14 years of age) for the year 2008. (Source: World Health Organization1).

Table VII World death rates per 100,000 people for age 0-14 in 2008.

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

21

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

C.4. What has worked in philanthropy and what has not Besides all of the blogs and debates on what has worked in philanthropy and what has not as Bill Gates discussed with his colleagues in his Pledge-letter 107 , I have learned first-hand what is effective and what is counter-productive during my ten years experience as a team member teaching microprocessors for about one month/year in third world countries to physicists and engineers. Helping third world countries this way was an idea of Nobel laureate Abdus Salam, Director of the International Center of Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste, Italy, who, in 1980 had the idea of not only teaching theoretical physics to scientists of third world countries but also practical skills like how to design and build the hardware and software of a computer starting from microprocessors and peripherals costing between $1 and $10. CERN group leader Rinus Verkerk lead our team of about 20 professionals from different countries as we went to a different country for one month per year with 22 computers made at CERN for this didactical purpose. During the month we spent abroad we had the opportunity to become acquainted with many scientists and their families who were attending the College on Microprocessors. We were often invited to their home for dinner. There I learned from the wife of a college student who was working in the Agricultural Department of the University of Ghana that their development plans were continually being disrupted by the aid of philanthropists who provided free rice that would nullify all their work and de-motivate farmers to work hard to grow rice. Just when it was time to reap the reward for their work, free rice would be distributed by philanthropists. As a result it became harder and harder for her to convince farmers the following years to work hard growing rice because there was no protection from the government for their work investment. The sad part was that when in the following years no free rice arrived from the philanthropists, farmers had not grown any because they thought it would be delivered for free. Another example was when a mainframe IBM computer (older model) was donated in Ghana. The first time a circuit broke, they did not have the money to pay for repairs and the mainframe was just heating the room. This time the knowledge we gave them was valuable, as starting with a small 8bit processor costing between $1 and $10, they were able to build medical instruments, instruments to control crystal growth, etc. I have seen several projects built during the several years that I traveled this way in Columbia, Argentina, Sri-Lanka, China, Africa, Mexico, etc. This lesson taught me to look carefully when I make a charitable donation of time or money. I have also seen how philanthropy has worked in saving many lives and alleviating much suffering, not only with monetary donations, but also with time and effort from thousands of people, some who have dedicated their lives to helping others. However, facts and data (an astronomical annual cost to society of $1.4 trillion with almost zero return in cancer death reduction) and false advertisement repeated over the past 65 years claiming cancer cures exist, as reported in the three prior sections irrefutably confirm that, in regard to the cancer problem, philanthropy has not worked and is not working. What would it take to make it work? With so many people giving to charitable foundations for cancer, the problem would be solved by now if questions like the following would receive a logical answer. I receive questions like the following on a recurrent basis following my seminars: “What are the people who are active in humanitarian causes saying about your 3D-CBS innovation that could have already saved many lives if funded? Why don't they disseminate your documents 22

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

requesting accountability from people who are using cancer money? People who ask for cancer money and cannot estimate a return in lives saved or cannot demonstrate publicly with calculations supported by scientific arguments to have a solution superior in efficiency to other projects should not receive funds because it will be wasted. Wouldn’t it be in the interest of people caring about humanitarian causes to make good use of their money and eliminate the contradiction of no lives saved and their money wasted?” C.5. The logical steps to identifying the most efficacious solution and to help remove obstacles The most logical things to do are: ‐ Support scientific procedures to identify the most efficacious solutions (and logically support the best solution once it has been found) that will show a realistic plan to reduce premature cancer death and cost per life saved. ‐

Help Remove the obstacles that are an impediment to the dissemination of this scientific procedure.

‐

Request a change to the peer-review process to one of “public scrutiny” where reviewers of articles and of projects seeking funding, provide scientific arguments for rejections or approvals. For both cases reviewers should compare the submitted project with existing solutions/approaches, showing it to be inferior for rejection or superior for approval.

C.5.1 Support scientific procedures to identify solutions with highest potential to reduce premature cancer death Here I will address in more detail what is meant by following scientific procedures: 1. Rules aiming to identify the most efficacious solutions or approaches should be set before evaluating begins. In order to eliminate any possible favoritism, the “JUDGE” should be the result of a formula or the value of a clearly defined parameter, and not left to the arbitration of an individual or a group of individuals. 2. It should be open: all projects and/or approaches supported by scientific arguments should be considered. 3. It should be transparent: no secrecy. 4. It should be available for public scrutiny to allow anyone the opportunity to refute the authors’ claims using scientific arguments. 5. Authors should take responsibility to answer legitimate questions supporting his/her claims with scientific arguments. 6. Author’s claims should be based on accurate calculations and/or logical reasoning and scientific approaches (results should be reproducible). 7. Author’s claim should be compared with other similar approaches and the differences, including advantages and disadvantages, should be pointed out. 8. Author should discuss whether results of calculation and estimates of the final goal (in this specific case reducing cancer death and cost) can be verified experimentally, and detail how this can be achieved. 9. Before starting the construction of any experiment, in order to avoid wasting time and money, the question should be asked, “Is the research plan well thought out?”, “Will it provide results that will either prove or disprove the calculations and the claims?” D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

23

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

The Leonardo da Vinci competition followed all steps of this scientific procedure. Rules of the competition were discussed for four months. Starting in January 28, 2011, the public was invited to submit comments and input to the draft of the rules through press releases to thousands of outlets; emails were sent to tens of thousands of scientists, decision makers and experts in the field; meetings were held on January 12, 2011, with CERN’s Scientific Director and the Atlas experiment Deputy Spokesman; emails were exchanged with leaders and experts from FERMIlab and BNL. The result of the formula for efficiency: “number of photons captured divided by the number of photons emitted” was adopted, and became the impartial “JUDGE” for all projects and approaches. The competition was open to any individual or group. All claims, calculations, articles, were available on the web, published in journals, magazines, newspapers or claimed by the author. All phases of the scientific procedure (defining the rules, request for application, projects entries, request to author to add claims or material, scrutiny of all projects, technologies and approaches) were made public. Authors were requested to provide calculations and scientific arguments to support their claims and to provide an estimate of the reduction of cancer death and cost per life saved. Authors were also requested to provide a comparison with other project entries in the event the author was able to demonstrate superiority of his project in efficiency and lower cost in saving lives. Finally, the authors had to provide a calculation and a research plan which they would use before starting any experiment to estimate the expected results and how they would measure results in the event the project was funded. (For example, by planning a test safe for the patient, performed on a representative sample of 10,000 people ages 50-75, selected from a location with a constant cancer death rate of 50 deaths per year -which is the average worldwide- recorded over the previous 20 years. The reduction achieved from the 50 deaths/year occurred in the previous year will prove the success rate of the project). The projects were published on the web www.LeonardoDaVinciPrize.org (now at www.LeonardoDaVinciPrize.com), and an email address [email protected] was provided so that anyone who had comments and questions for the authors about their projects could submit them. All events were public. At the meeting on June 8, 2011, held at the University of Pavia, each entry to the competition was subjected to scrutiny and “Judged” for efficiency by the predetermined formula. The meeting was broadcast via web-streaming in two languages (Italian, English), and through the EVO system from Caltec. As the author of the 3D-CBS innovative technology claiming superiority with respect to the other project entries, I addressed ALL issues and answered all questions, including those made by the nine guarantors in the meeting room or connected via internet from different countries. The minutes of the June 8, 2011 meeting of the scrutiny of all projects (available at www.UnitedToEndCacancer.org/doc/50.pdf) approved by the nine guarantors, testify that I answered all questions satisfactorily, and no one could refute the superiority of the 3DCBS to all other projects. Projects and approaches which calculations revealed to be inefficient, requiring an exorbitant cost and that do not contribute to the reduction of cancer deaths should not be funded. Instead, the ones getting funded are projects like the Axial-PET whose author, Christian Joram even claimed “it is not a cancer project32” but is receiving funding from the Association Madame Curie and other parties who are deceived into thinking they are contributing to cancer research. While the 3D-CBS, which has demonstrated irrefutably with calculation and comparisons to other projects that it is superior in efficiency, has a lower cost, and saves lives, remains unfunded.

24

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

C.5.1.1

Summary of the advantages of the innovative 3D-CBS technology compared to the over 5,000 PET in use currently

The 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) innovative technology captures over 400 times the number of photons emitted by the tumor markers from the body of the patient compared to the number of photons captured by current PET when the same radiation activity is present in the patient’s body. Furthermore, the photons are captured by the 3D-CBS technology more accurately in terms of arrival time, spatial resolution (x, y, and z) and energy resolution, and at a lower cost per photon captured. Innovations are also in the area of displaying results in a more accurate manner to the physician. These advantages permit a safe screening because of its considerable reduction of the radiation dose administered to the patient, enable early detection of anomalies and avoid misdiagnosis of “false positives” and “false negatives.” The key elements of my innovative technology that allows the construction of a device of the type 3D-CBS fall in five main areas. Innovative electronics enables innovations in a simplified detector assembly, which in turn enables innovations in the capability of executing complex realtime algorithms. Additional innovations, such as the ones that enable the use of more economical crystals allowing increased FOV that keeps the entire device at a reasonable cost, is achieved through a combination of the previous innovations. The following is a schematic list of the most important innovations and their outcomes (see also Figure 10): 1. Innovative electronics provide a way to: a) accurately measure the impact point and energy of oblique photons b) reduce the initial number of the electronic channels c) simplify the method for identifying in-time coincidences 2.

Improved and simplified detector assembly

3. Capability of executing complex algorithms for photons identification; 4.

Increased detector length – longer Field of View (FOV);

5.

Innovations in the visualization of the information obtained (Section 9, Figures 2, 3 of the ICATPP article71).

The synergy of coupling several innovations, such as in the detector, sensors and the electronic system, enable the capture of all possible signals from tumor markers and the execution of real-time algorithms for more accurate and efficient photon identification at a lower cost per photon captured. All these inventions provide the physician with more accurate measurements of the five parameters that will reduce “false positives”, “false negatives”, as well as the examination cost and allow early diagnosis. These five parameters are: 1. Accurate measurement of the total photon energy, using signals received from 9 electronic channels (rather than 4 as used in current PET), that allows discrimination of “good events” from “scatter events”. 2. Accurate measurement of the photon arrival time (Time-of-Flight -TOF-) that allows to discriminate “good events” from “randoms” and “multiple” events. 3. Accurate measurement of spatial resolution referred to as the ‘x’ and 'y' coordinates (distance in the axial and 90° with respect to the axial direction of the impact of the photon into the surface of the crystal. A Centroid is calculated based on a 3x3 array rather than a 2x2 array as used in current PET). D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

25

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

4. Accurate measurement of the photon Depth Of Interaction (DOI) which allows elimination of the parallax error. 5. The capability to execute complex algorithms in real-time, allows improvement of the signal-to-noise ratio, while sustaining high input data rate. A summary of the advantages derived from my inventions include: 1. Accurate detection of minimum abnormal metabolism that allows early cancer detection 2. Significant reduction of the radiation dose administered to the patient to a level lower than 1 mSv 3. Significant reduction of the examination cost and of global health care costs The advantages are summarized in Figure 10. Pairs of photons in time coincidence detected by the instrument Radiation activity in the patient during the scanning time

ADVANTAGES

of the innovative 3D-CBS technology

3D-CBS (New Three-Dimensional PET/CT)

Current PET

‹

30-90 minutes per exam

‹

4-minutes per exam

Exam Speed

‹

$2.000-$4.000 per exam

‹

$300-$400 per exam

Exam Cost

‹

1,100-1,600 mrem ANNUAL EXAM IS DANGEROUS

‹

35-45 mrem

‹

‹

Captures only one photon out of 10,000. (Measures the dimension of already formed tumors and at an advanced stage Physicians must interpret abnormal metabolism from the darkening of a spot on the monitor

ANNUAL EXAM

IS NOT DANGEROUS

www.crosettofoundation.org

‹

‹

3D-CBS offers:

Efficiency =

‹

Radioactive Dose

‹

Captures one photon out of 25 (Measures the smallest Efficiency metabolism change)

‹

It provides quantitative information to the physician Information relative to to Physician the minimum abnormal metabolism

‹

reducing “false positives” and “false negatives”)

Very high sensitivity Low radiation dose, short examination time, low examination cost Essential information to the physician obtained by counting and capturing all possible photons from tumor markers

It allows very early cancer detection (while

‹

It allows annual screening, benefitting a larger number of people

‹

It provides pictures related to the smallest abnormal metabolism that are easier for physicians to interpret

‹ Lower Health

Care costs

(this allows early detection)

Figure 10. Comparison between the approach used in current PET devices to measure tumor dimensions at an advanced stage and the new 3D-CBS approach to measure the minimum abnormality in biological processes targeted to early cancer detection.

Although my invention is important because it enables the discovery of new particles in High Energy Physics (HEP), it is even more important in extracting all possible information from the radiation administered to the patient enabling a safe screening and an efficacious early cancer detection. 26

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

The recognition that my invention is a breakthrough in particle detection providing a programmable solution for level-1 trigger of different High Energy Physics (HEP) experiments and advantages to other applications is confirmed by the Head of the Computing Division at FERMIlab, Joel Butler, who, in a letter 108 dated February 27, 1995, wrote the following in regard to the 1993 review: “…This review committee found the design to be promising for its potential application in HEP triggering and possibly elsewhere, and to be a technically sound and feasible approach.”, “The 3D-Flow Architecture offers the possibility of performing decision-making, image processing, and pattern recognition in a flexible manner…”, “These elements make it a promising approach to solve many problems, ranging from high speed triggering applications in High Energy Physics to image processing applications of significance in the commercial sectors”, “As far as applications to High Energy Physics, at present the 3D-Flow project is the only detailed study demonstrating the feasibility of executing several level-1 trigger algorithms of different experiments.” C.5.1.2

Awarding the best technology/invention

Before my invention, problems requiring processing at high-speed in real-time on data arriving from thousands of channels, needed fast, expensive ECL56, GaAs57, subnanometer technology electronics. The speed of the electronics and the limits of the “block detector” assembly in medical imaging applications were imposing a barrier to the number of signals that could be captured and accurately measured. This barrier in processing capability and accuracy in measurement has been overcome with my invention, breaking the speed barrier in real-time applications. Instead in the case of the Enrico Fermi Award given to Michael Phelps, no one could identify the merit of his alleged invention that lead to his receiving the Prize (even after my email exchange with Michal Phelps asking him what he invented and sending upon his request one of my basic peer-reviewed articles). Weren’t scientists in the review panel assigning the Enrico Fermi Award to Michael Phelps aware of the real history 109 of PET? Why didn’t the other thousands of true scientist have a chance to make scientific truth prevail? This question should be asked anytime an award is given if no one can clearly describe the benefits to mankind from the project meriting the award. In 2002 I also had a phone conversation with Gordon Brownell who was Director of the Massachusetts General Hospital’s PET department at the time PET was invented in 1950 when Michael Phelps was 11 years old. However, during all these years when Positron Emission Technique was applied to medical imaging the inefficiency of the current PET could never provide the benefit of early detection and low radiation to the patient. This limit of the old and current PET has been overcome with my inventions. I have invented the first PET screening technology called 3D-CBS which can provide the benefit of early cancer detection. Unlike Michael Phelps, I can instead state very clearly the merits of my inventions implemented in the 3D-CBS. For instance my innovative 3D-Flow parallel-processing architecture allows sustaining an input data rate of data-packets (radiation) arriving every 10 to 90 naonoseconds and processing them for several hundreds of nanoseconds. This 3D-Flow architecture does not require expensive, ultra-fast electronics and permits the use of the most cost effective technology. This D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

27

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

approach breaks the speed-limit in acquiring and processing information in real-time from systems with very high input data rate, requiring data correlation with information from neighboring channels. In other words, the 3D-Flow parallel-processing architecture has the capability to accurately extract valuable information from data (radiation) arriving from thousands of channels at several million frames per second by processing each frame for a time longer than the interval between two consecutive frames. My basic invention in this field of the 3D-Flow parallel-processing architecture was formally recognized on December 14, 1993, by a major international scientific public review11 held at FERMIlab before hundreds of scientists and a panel of experts from CERN, universities and industries who recognized the merit of my invention and assigned all available funding from the closeout of the Superconducting Super Collider –SSC- ($150,000). To this invention, I added other specific inventions12 (detector assembly, algorithms, etc.) in the field of medical imaging conceiving the 3D-CBS first PET screening technology that was recognized by the international, open, public, transparent Leonardo da Vinci competition when I was awarded the prize49 on June 8, 2011. See pages 5-7, items 13, 14 and 17. C.5.2 Remove the obstacles to the dissemination of this scientific procedure The following is an example of an obstacle that needs to be removed. A scientist from FERMIlab received an invitation by email to submit comments to the rules of the Leonardo da Vinci competition that would guarantee a scientific procedure. However, instead of responding he reported the website of the Leonardo da Vinci competition as being abusive, claiming, that it contained marketing material. Surprisingly he did not report the sender of the email, but the website mentioned in the email (www.LeonardoDaVinciPrize.org). As a result, the service provider GoDaddy closed the Leonardo da Vinci website in June 2011. Since then several communications with GoDaddy and with FERMIlab leaders have taken place. One of these included a letter from a scientist to FERMIlab, Department of Energy leaders and legal departments. After four months the Leonardo da Vinci prize website remains closed. The damage was done; how many people who received press releases to that web site from January to June 2011 were unable to be informed on the scientific truth? The owner of that website was able to create an identical copy at the www.LeonardoDaVinciPrize.info so that FERMIlab leaders and DOE legal departments could see that there was nothing there that would warrant a complaint. In fact the website showed it was just trying to implement an open, transparent scientific procedure. No specific objections were made in regard to any text or image; nothing was termed offensive to FERMIlab or science that would justify the scientist’s request to shut down the web site, but the original web site still remains closed because GoDaddy requested that FERMIlab send a letter asking them to remove FERMIlab’s original request to close the Leonardo da Vinci Prize web site. However, leaders of FERMIlab wanted GoDaddy to call them on the phone. This is just one example among several other similar actions, of why not achieving substantial results in reducing cancer death and cost is not a lack of identifying the best scientific solution but because there are obstacles preventing the implementation of a procedure which would disseminate vital information. 28

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

C.5.3 Change the peer-review process to “public scrutiny” where reviewers of articles and projects needing funding should provide scientific arguments for their rejection or approval of the most efficient solution to make progress beneficial to mankind prevail when compared to other projects For issues that do not involve billions of lives as cancer does (affecting over 40% of the world’s population during a life time) the media sometimes makes a huge press coverage. On September 23, 2011, CERN scientist, Dr. Antonio Ereditato, spokesman for the OPERA collaboration announced their neutrino speed measurements which showed the neutrinos were breaking the speed of light. During a BBC interview, Ereditato asked for public help to explain what he termed their “crazy results”. I naively believed this to be a genuine public, transparent scientific procedure, and I answered110 his appeal on October 2, 2011. However, only as time passes and investigations are made, facts show a different reality. I have read hundreds of blogs on this subject, but I have not seen many addressing the specific details OPERA Spokesman’s request for help in scrutinizing their measurement procedure and providing specific technical suggestions that would explain and help to rectify those inconclusive results. The essence of my letter 110 sent on October 2, 2011 to OPERA Spokesman Dr. Ereditato, CERN Scientific and General Directors, BBC, Washington Post and The New York Times was the following: “Since the discrepancy you found is so big, you do not need the neutrino to travel 732 Km in order to  see  this  discrepancy.  Using  simple  proportions  traveling  just  3.2  Km  distance  should  give  you  a  difference of about 260 picoseconds which is 26 times greater than the 10 picoseconds resolution step  of  your  measuring  apparatus.  …    build  two  identical  electronic  channel  circuits  (or  purchase  off‐the‐ shelf components) with a time resolution of 10 picoseconds to measure the traveling time of the two  beams; within the detectors, use the same transducer (if possible) to convert light into electrical signals  (e.g.  Photek  PMT240  or  fast  SiPM  from  Hamamatsu  or  STMicroelectronics);  then  SWAP  THE  TWO  ELECTRONIC CHANNEL CIRCUITS and repeat the experiment on the two burst of bunches to make sure  that the neutrino beam (as well as the light beam) has the same speed regardless of which electronic  channel is used (otherwise the fault would lie in the measuring device).” 

I continued the discussion 111 with a CERN scientist I have known for more than 30 years when we both were working at CERN and would go out over several years to dinners and gatherings as a small group of friends. Ereditato being one of them, and this scientist’s conclusion was that my observations regarding OPERA experiment were correct. However, what I believed to be a true open, transparent, scientific procedure, in fact was not. If it were, one would expect an address, an email, or a blog would be made available by those who solicited public help on this issue. Instead the BBC blog 112 reporting Ereditato’s statement “we want to be helped by the community in understanding our crazy result – because it is crazy” was closed after one day after receiving 1,165 blogs. CERN Bulletin 113 Nos 41 & 42 have two articles about the OPERA experiment on pages 1-2 and on page 5, while on page 3 it states: “So you have ideas, questions and/or suggestions? The CERN Press Office and CERN publications … are not in a position to judge any theories explaining OPERA’s result.” It continues by mentioning a peer-review process, journals, relevant web sites, but it does not provide a street address, an email address, or a blog where OPERA scientists are evaluating the “help provided by the public they have solicited” and answering questions. D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

29

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

Ereditato says on page 5 of the CERN Bulletin: “We are replying to many interesting suggestions”, however, since he (together with BBC, CERN, Nature, The Washington Post, The New York Times, etc.) solicited this “public scrutiny” why doesn’t he make public in a blog the comments/questions they receive and their replies? All parties who agreed to release Ereditato’s interview and OPERA findings, asking for “public scrutiny” in order not just to be part of a “show” should have made an agreement with Ereditato and the OPERA collaboration to publish their findings and to broadcast their appeal under the condition that they will publish ALL received comments/questions pertinent to the subject and answer the one they consider more important. In this way the public could understand which comments/questions, from among ALL comments/questions received OPERA considered more important. This would explain to the public how a peer-review system works, what is considered important in science, in which direction scientific research is going, and whether scientific procedures were followed. It is a responsibility of the peer-review process to consider pertinent comments and to answer legitimate questions. When a peer-review process is not complying with these two basic rules, research might go in the wrong direction, away from progress. My letter110 to Ereditato (copied to BBC, CERN, etc.) was not published by the BBC and did not receive a reply from Ereditato. Why not? Did they find my comments to be not pertinent or irrelevant, or my questions not legitimate? No! - In fact the CERN scientist with whom I exchanged emails concluded that my remarks about the OPERA experiment were correct. The OPERA collaboration’s task approved for 5 years in 2001 (extended for 5 additional years in 2006) was to study the oscillation of muon-neutrinos transformed into tau-neutrinos. They recorded only one event of the original task for which the experiment was approved. Realizing they were obtaining only limited results, they formulated the idea of measuring the speed of the neutrino. However, the experiment was not equipped to perform this measurement accurately and the results were inconclusive. Because the second period of 5 years is up in December 2011, the OPERA collaboration will present their inconclusive attempts to measure the speed of the neutrino hoping to get an extension from CERN for their experiment whose main task was unsuccessful (just one event recorded). Why did OPERA obtain inconclusive results in measuring the speed of neutrinos? Would they get conclusive results with more data if they repeat their experiments for another two or more years? Before wasting money building any experiment, one should make calculations and answer some logical questions. In this case the question that needs answering is: what does it take to measure accurately distance and time? One of the key issues is determining the exact starting position and time of the neutrino’s journey. CERN’s Bulletin113 on page 2 states: “The flux and profile of the muons, the ‘sister particle’ of the neutrinos, are continuously monitored…” A neutrino can only be detected at the end of its journey when it hits the target and is destroyed: therefore, the start of its journey must be either detected by its ‘sister particle’ the muon, or by referring to the start of the proton beam. In an interview on September 28, 2011, with the Italian newspaper La Stampa 114 , Ereditato likened the neutrinos to passengers getting out of cars (protons) stopped in a long line on a highway (bunch of protons 10,000 nanoseconds long f ) who start running to their destination. Those waiting at the f

 The relation between time and space is: 1 nanosecond = 30 cm  30

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

arrival point would not be able to tell if the passengers who arrive first are from the first car, last car, or somewhere in the middle of the line of stopped cars. Ereditato used this analogy to explain the uncertainty of the starting time and location of the neutrino’s journey in their experimental setup that at 10,000 nanoseconds was 160 times greater than the difference (60 nanoseconds) in the speed of light and the speed of the neutrinos they measured. To this news, a journalist or reader should be asking why Ereditato organized a “pedestrian race” without knowing the time and location of the “pedestrians” when they began running. It would also be natural to ask other questions such as: why didn’t he reduce this uncertainty by organizing the competition among pedestrians who all exit just one bus and start running at the same time instead of emerging from hundreds of cars stopped in a line? Other questions should be asked such as: who approved this experimental setup? Didn’t anyone make calculations before building the experiment and taking data? How many millions of Euros of our tax-money were spent in seven years building this experimental setup with hundreds of physicists and engineers taking data for three years, when it should have been obvious before starting that it would give inconclusive results? Before constructing any experiment it is possible to find out using calculations and analysis of the problem if it will yield conclusive results. Here I have outlined a plan to compare the speed of light to the speed of a neutrino in a way that would avoid any inconclusive results: ‐

The light beam and the neutrino beam need to travel the same distance and the time to cover this distance needs to be compared using the same measuring instrument. The distance should be long enough to measure the expected difference in speed between the two beams of at least 20 times the resolution of the instrument. In this case a distance longer than 2 miles, which would be a difference in speed of 26 times the 10 picoseconds resolution of the newly built measuring instrument.

‐

As a more accurate reference for the starting time and location of the journey one can use a proton bunch of 500 picoseconds (that will be 1,000 picoseconds including its tail g when taking a sigma of 6) spaced 50,000 picoseconds from another bunch (this beam is currently available at CERN’s LHC –Large Hadron Collider-), or the time of the ‘sister particle’ muon as mentioned in CERN’s bulletin. This will provide an uncertainty of 0.008 with respect to OPERA’s measured difference between the speed of a neutrino and the speed of light definitely a great improvement when compared to the current uncertainty of the start of the photon on its journey in the OPERA experiment which is 160 times that difference.

‐

Do not use a GPS, rather measure every cable length and traces on the PCB boards down to the millimeter (equivalent to 3 picoseconds) to keep things under control. If possible, do not use FPGA but components that guarantee a minimum difference in propagation delay from part to part. Compensate for any time difference between the thousands of detector channels using programmable delay lines determined experimentally, by sending a light beam into the detector.

‐

Swap the electronic circuit channels between the one measuring the light speed and the one measuring the neutrino speed. The speed of each beam should always measure the same value regardless of which electronic channel circuit is used (otherwise the fault would lie in the measuring device).

g

 For example a proton bunch at CERN’s LHC, 0.05 meters long, spaced 15 meters from the next, has a duration of t = s / v = 0.05 rms / 300,000,000 mt/sec * 3 sigma = 500 picoseconds, (while considering 6 sigma has a duration of 1,000 picoseconds). The interval in time to the next proton bunch distant 15 meters is equivalent to t = s / v = 15/300,000,000 mt/sec = 50,000 picoseconds. 

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

31

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

C.5.3.1

Proof that I built and tested electronics in hardware in 2003 which is hundreds of times more accurate than the 2008 electronics designed for the OPERA experiment and used for measuring breaking the speed of light

In my discussion with the CERN scientist who agreed with my remarks, I went into greater detail about the uncertainty of measuring the arrival point of the neutrino bunch. This uncertainty can be reduced from several thousands of picoseconds, as reported in slide 49 by Autiero at CERN’s presentation on September 23, 2011 (1,000 picoseconds by the DAQ clock transmission, 1,000 picoseconds from the FPGA calibration, 1,000 picoseconds from the FWD trigger, etc.), to tens of picoseconds. But this is only possible if everything is calculated, planned, and taken into account during the conception of the experiment as, for example, I have explained on page 379 of the article when I designed70 in 1999 an experimental setup or when I designed and built 115 the photon detector board in 2003 for the 3D-CBS system, where the clock difference between any signals within the board or within different boards in different chassis have a maximum difference of 40 picoseconds. Only during the design phase could I take into account that all traces for the clock distribution would have a maximum difference in length of less than 1 mm (3 picoseconds), and I would compensate, through experimental measurements, the slight difference of cable length between boards and between circuit manufacturing characteristics by including in the design of the board four programmable delay chips MC100EP195. In this board115 I had 70 LEDs to monitor slow signals and 120 test points to monitor fast signals. This was all conceived during the design of the system. It is too late to try to fix poor hardware with software as a statistical or systematic error analysis. I admired the effort of Dario Autiero in explaining the “Babylon” of circuits, timings, start and arrival time of the neutrino journey, etc., at the seminar118 given at CERN on September 23, 2011. He did a great job in putting together all the information and relating it to the measurement of the neutrino speed. However, relating back to the analogy of the passengers (neutrinos) exiting their cars, one should improve the measurement of the starting time and location of each passenger rather than hoping they are not all coming from the first car in line (proton) as Ereditato stated. Calculation and planning can demonstrate that a small experiment, along a path length of 2 to 5 miles, at CERN, FERMIlab, SLAC, or Japan comparing the speed of light with neutrino speed and exchanging the measuring instrumentation (the two precise timers, also called two electronic circuit channels) will provide conclusive results115 at a much lower cost. Calculations should also be made regarding the radiation level created by the continuous bombardment over several years of the graphite target with protons. One would not want to create a hazardous radioactive site in Switzerland for this measurement, which should yield conclusive results over a period of one year or less of data taking. The CERN scientist agreed with me that when the decision on whether to approve a second extension of the OPERA experiment comes before the SPSC 116 review committee in December 2011, they should consider their result of having found only one possible event candidate during their ten years funding for the original OPERA experiment of studying the oscillation of muonneutrino in tau-neutrino. What would be the chance of finding more events? How would science benefit or progress from obtaining the expected results? Are there other priorities that would result in both a progress for science and a benefit to the collectivity who are funding the research?

32

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

In CERN’s Bulletin No 41, a one page article titled “Upstream from OPERA: extreme attention to detail,,” the word “expert” is used 8 times, the word “accurate” (or “accuracy”) is used 12 times, yet: 1. Ereditato stated in his interview to La Stampa that the uncertainty of the start of the journey of the neutrino is 160 times greater than the difference they found between the speed of the neutrino and the speed of light. 2. In 1999 I designed and published70 in a prestigious peer-review journal an article on the clock distribution system to 729 channels with a maximum difference between any two channels of 450 picoseconds. In December 2002 I designed and in March 2003 I built and tested in hardware a modular board system115 that would guarantee a difference between any two clock signals among hundreds of thousands of channels of less than 40 picoseconds (nowadays it will be less than 10 picoseconds). I am providing the schematics and PCB layout so that anyone can verify that these results can be achieved. This would reduce OPERA’s current uncertainty by several thousands of picoseconds in measuring the arrival time. (It could also be used at the start time when measuring the path of the muon ‘sister particle’). 3. In spite of this, OPERA and CERN built an experiment with upgraded electronics in 2008 having an inaccuracy in timing (as presented 117 on slide 49 at the CERN seminar on September 23, 2011, which is available on video 118 ) of several thousands of picoseconds, yet the article in CERN’s Bulletin 41 & 42 calls it “outstanding accuracy”! What would they then call my clock distribution system having an accuracy of 40 picoseconds to hundreds of thousands of channels? This should clearly explain why peer-reviews to approve articles as well as to assign funding do not work because reviewers do not have any responsibility to answer with scientific arguments legitimate questions that would make scientific truth prevail, promote progress and benefit mankind. C.5.3.1

The need for the media to inform the public of the results of the “public scrutiny” started by OPERA collaboration, and of the Leonardo da Vinci competition which addresses the much more important issue of 6.5 million people who die prematurely from cancer every year. The media should provide a link to all the comments/questions submitted to OPERA, to the answers/responses from an OPERA Spokesperson, and similar links to the comments/questions and answers from the winner of the Leonardo da Vinci Competition and the scientific evidence of the solution that has superior efficiency, lower cost, and greater benefits for mankind

As I have proven, I designed and built in 2003 a system with a 40 picoseconds uncertainty while OPERA designed and built a system in 2008 which has an uncertainty of several thousands of picoseconds to measure the speed of the neutrino (which relies on statistical errors and systematic errors calculated by software). More importantly, these same design flaws are present in technology designed to save lives when more efficient technology already exists . With unsupported calculations and using inferior technology when there exists technology that can measure thousands of times more accurately particles moving at breakneck speeds, the media created a huge coverage to the point that in a few days, by typing the words “BBC breaking the speed of light” in Google, you would get 930,000 results; replacing the word “BBC” with “CERN,” you would get 675,000 results; when the word “neutrino” is added, you get 230,000 results.

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

33

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

Who has the responsibility of not having created the coverage for my innovative technology that can been proven with calculations and implementation in hardware to be superior in efficiency to any other system with the potential to save many lives through early cancer detection? The positive side to this huge coverage of an inconclusive, inaccurate measurement of the speed of the neutrino is that attention- seeking scientists have finally opened up the “public scrutiny” tool that could make scientific truth prevail when implemented rigorously. By giving the green light to “public scrutiny” of scientific procedures, CERN is promoting the same “public scrutiny” of their neutrino experiment as was implemented by the Leonardo da Vinci competition. This should start a new era in the peer-review process. There are no more reasons to keep “anonymity” in the peer review process. When the tool of the internet was not available, it was important to select a few reviewers because the information to be reviewed could not be printed and sent to the entire world due to the astronomical cost and time it would take. Why should reviewers be anonymous? They are supposed to know and provide scientific arguments that explain the laws of nature. There is not room for secrecy for no transparency, and anonymity in science. A true scientist should take responsibility for what he says. If he does not believe in what he says to the point that he does not have the courage to support it in public, why should another person believe what he says? If a scientist cannot believe in his own interpretation of the laws of nature to the point that he does not have the courage to say in public and support his finding and demonstrate it to be superior to others, why should others believe and FUND what the author cannot believe and cannot support? A recurrent explanation that I received in the past about the established peer-review process is that I should publish a work and everything stops there. However, what is missing is the COMPARISON among different ideas, approaches, projects, and the RESPONSIBILITY of the decision maker to recognize and support the scientific solution that has more merits in high efficiency and low cost. When facts and data show after a few months or years that more efficient and lower cost solutions existed years or decades before and less efficient and more costly solutions were funded, those decision makers should resign and leave their position to other scientists more capable of identifying the most cost effective solution through public, transparent scientific procedures. Large research centers that try to use propaganda, PR, and unsupported advertisements to manipulate people’s brains seem to receive more popular consensus in the short term, however, in the long term are hurting science, research, and the scientific community because the scientific truth at some point will be revealed, and the only hope is that people forgot what was said when scientists used unsupported advertisements instead of making the scientific truth prevail. Now that technology of the world wide web (which, by the way, was invented at CERN) allows us to reach instantly the world, there is no reason to limit scientific discussion to a few people. Any scientist who can make a scientific contribution to humanity should be allowed to defend his claims in public with calculations, scientific arguments, and logical reasoning and be ultimately proven right or wrong from experimental results. Decision makers should be responsible to recognize the most cost effective solution and to direct funds to those.

34

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

If Ereditato had gone public five years ago about his “crazy” results, certainly we would now have a conclusive answer to whether the neutrino is breaking the speed of light, and much money would have been saved. At the end, discussing scientific arguments publicly with no anonymity can only accelerate progress and benefits to mankind. The media: BBC, NATURE, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and many others have supported Ereditato’s request for “public scrutiny,” and they should keep these blogs alive which keep their readers informed, as ultimately it will be “public scrutiny” which will “cure” cancer research (creating a paradigm change) as well as identifying the most cost effective research projects in other fields that deserves funding in order to make greater leaps in progress (See my blog #27358 on NATUREnews 119 and blog #30012). The public will feel deceived and manipulated if the one who requested “help” in this “public scrutiny” would not show he is serious about finding and revealing the scientific truth by publishing in a blog all comments/questions received and the answers provided by OPERA. These answers will show in which direction research is heading. But a more serious problem for humanity is the calamity of cancer that is prematurely taking over 6.5 million lives per year and is costing society $1.4 trillion/year. It is much more urgent that the media create an equivalent coverage that will generate in a few days 900,000 results on the web by publishing this document asking not only for “public scrutiny” but for making scientific truth prevail in what can more cost effectively reduce cancer death and cost, and in asking for pro bono assistance to make civil laws that are in the interest of the citizen and of the cancer patient prevail in order to create a more civilized world. I will make a commitment (as Ereditato should have made) that any pertinent comments/questions will be published either on the media blog who made the announcement, or the comments/questions can be sent to [email protected] and will be published at www.UnitedToEndCancer.org and other websites. With the consent of the media who publish this letter, a link to their blog will be provided at www.UnitedToEndCancer.org so that users may reach more effectively all comments/questions. I will also make the commitment to answer publicly, as I did on June 8, 2011 (see the minutes17 of the meeting at the University of Pavia), the most relevant questions so that everyone can understand the direction cancer research is heading, and I will provide data and facts demonstrating which will be the most efficacious direction to go in order to obtain a greater reduction in cancer death and cost. C.6. Who should take responsibility for getting results? C.6.1 Responsibility should be taken by those who finance this field: THE CITIZENS with their tax-dollars and THE PHILANTHROPISTS with their donations The first responsibility lies with those who contribute to cancer research either directly, through donations, or indirectly, with their tax dollars, because they should be asking: “What are we getting in return for our money in terms of reduction of cancer death and costs?” If this question is not even asked, then we shouldn’t be surprised if billions of dollars continue to be spent year after year with no return except millions of scientific articles, dead-end research, and other achievements that mainly feed the cancer business. D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

35

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

Bill Gates’ words in his letter to The Giving Pledge echo this sentiment: “We have been blessed with good fortune beyond our wild expectations, and we are profoundly grateful. But just as these gifts are great, so we feel a great responsibility to use them well.” In the case of cancer research, the word “well” is achieved when there is a significant reduction of premature cancer death and cost. This explains why for more than a decade my inventions have not been funded. There has been a refusal to address this issue with the same logic given to the design of a bridge, an airplane, or a ship. There is the refusal by decision makers who fund PET projects that focus on improving spatial resolution to provide scientific arguments explaining why they would support this path when efficiency and cost are both compromised. During all these years decision makers in the field have focused on the requirements set by influential people and authorities in the field of medical imaging (mainly focusing on building PET measuring spatial resolution to the detriment of improving efficiency) instead of referring to logical reasoning, calculations, and ultimately experiments which would show that improving efficiency, as my 3D-CBS does, would save more lives and would cost considerably less than any other solution. Cancer research must change. The objective should be “reducing cancer death and cost.” Shrinking the tumor is a stopgap measure if the patient dies soon afterwards. Applicants and reviewers should provide scientific arguments and calculations showing why one project would have better a result in reducing cancer death than another, and this should be a criterion when assigning funds to any project. Titles of PhD, seniority, being influential or an authority in science should not be a requirement to submit or review an application. The scientific merit of the application is what is important; superiority can be shown with results from calculations and logical reasoning. A revolution should occur in the way ideas, innovations, and projects are reviewed and funds assigned. In the current review and funding process, inventors such as Steve Jobs or Jerry Merryman, the inventor of the pocket-calculator, could not have been reviewers or submit a project because they did not have a PhD as required by many agencies. The European FP7 Program for Research, for example, is one agency that has such a requirement and is currently assigning 7 billion Euros to research projects. If Leonardo da Vinci were still be alive, he could not submit any project to FP7 European Research Program because he did not have a formal education. He could not have access to any of those 7 billion Euro. It is time for reviewers and applicants to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY before science and before taxpayers to show they are competent in making calculations that will show one theory, idea, approach, or detailed project will yield a better result than another. The “judge” in science is not the PhD title or an authority referring to unclear scientific power, but calculations, logical reasoning, which stand alone. Often, after presenting enlightening data during my seminars, the ones who attend are led to reflecting statements of the type: “Everything you say seems so logical and a path that anyone who cares to make a humanitarian difference should consider. There are many worthwhile causes out there that need support and should be supported, but it makes sense to look for the worst calamity, the one that is costing more lives, more suffering, the highest burden to society, because the impact will be the greatest, and the cancer calamity will never be solved if everyone is limited to considering his personal problem without becoming aware of what he can do for the biggest problem.” Yes, all this is true and what is stopping many people from supporting this cause is just the fact that they FEAR upsetting someone by telling the truth. In fact one of the recurrent questions I hear after presenting logical facts and data is “who is against doing what you say?” If my answer 36

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

involves someone that this person does not want to upset, he does not question further. Also, some in the field FEAR to speak the truth regarding what is RIGHT and what is WRONG because they fear losing their job, their reputation, or being emarginated. But how can we move forward in science and in implementing changes for a better world if we cannot overcome our fears, if we do not accept RESPONSIBILITY and do not STAND UP for scientific TRUTH? C.6.2 Sign a petition to create laws and regulations asking those who raise money to fight cancer what you will get in return in terms of reduction of cancer deaths and costs. Because of the discrepancy between high costs and meager results and the following facts: 1. the high global economic cost of cancer of $1.4 trillion/year, 2. the huge investment in cancer research of $37 billion in 124,000 project (far from being the total number) gathered for a few years from official sources (http://www.crosettofoundation.org/table.php?lang=en); 3. the meager result of 5% reduction in cancer deaths in 50 years. (It should also be considered that the 5% reduction may not be attributable to cancer research but due to changes in life style and quitting smoking), 4. for 65 years we have known that in 90% to 98% of the cases, early detection saves lives, 5. it has been demonstrated that my 3D-CBS innovative technology, available for more than a decade, is 400 times more efficient than current 5,000 PET, and is enabling early cancer detection and cost reduction, it is time to ask to create laws and regulations asking those who raise money to fight cancer for an estimate of the reduction in cancer death for the money they spend. This petitiona to Stop Preventable Deaths is proposing to create a bill and regulations that would save thousands of lives from premature cancer death by asking those who raise money to fight cancer, what they will provide in return in terms of reduction of cancer death and cost. (A separate request for funding and budget should address the issue to assist patients in their terminal phase or any other cancer project that is not targeted to reduce premature cancer death). Cancer associations (or Government) who asks for money to fight cancer (or the Government that uses taxpayers dollars) should provide a link to a document describing the project that is aiming to reduce premature cancer death. The bill should request that each project should provide the following: 1. an estimate supported by scientific arguments of the percentage of cancer death reduction the project expects to attain, 2. how much the project costs, 3. when the first result showing the estimated cancer death reduction can be expected, 4. the estimated cost reduction for each life saved compared to current cost, 5. a document comparing the project under consideration with other projects that claim superiority in efficiency or which are in the top ten projects claiming highest efficiency in percentage of cancer death and cost reduction. The comparison should provide scientific arguments supporting any claim made when compared to other projects’ claims. In addition, the D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

37

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

author of such project (only in the event his entire project aimed to demonstrate the reduction of premature cancer death costs several million dollars, as well as authors of the top ten projects claiming highest efficiency) should be available to discuss publicly (via web or TV) in a transparent way with the winners of competitions aimed to identify projects with the highest potential to reduce premature cancer deaths and costs such as the Leonardo da Vinci competition, 6. a plan to measure results on a sample population of say 10,000 people in the age group 50 to 75 taken from a location where in the previous 20 years the death rate was constant (e.g. 0.5%).

C.7. What you can do to realize the dream: you need to stand united as an unbreakable bundle of sticks to show your courage by standing up for what is right, for science, and for the truth that will make everyone free The examples which follow are not intended to embarrass anyone; on the contrary, they aim to encourage us not to fear standing up and speaking up for what is beneficial to mankind, to the cancer patient, to our interest, in pursuing the “rules of civil laws” (written in the constitutions and laws of governments, missions of organizations and institution, and the professional duties of many lawyers and large firms). This is akin to following the “laws of nature” (science) and complying with the Golden Rule101. Who can be against this positive change? Who can be against repeating the words of professionals who promote themselves as following these rules and goals or anyone who shows with testimonials from their lives that they are implementing these rules and goals? Which person can be against someone who distinguishes himself by following the rules of civil laws, the laws of nature, and the Golden Rule101? We should not fear that by supporting these rules, we will upset someone we know, even our friend or someone who is funding but who is breaking some of these rules. We should have the courage to speak up for what we stand for and for what we believe. My aim is to implement all the above for a better world where justice from civil laws is enforced, science to the benefit of mankind will prevail and the Golden Rule101 will prevail. Instead of laying down a contract that will exclusively regulate the interest of two parties (inventor and a PET manufacturing company in this case), it should allow the participation of all parties who want to reduce premature cancer death, cost, and malnutrition to make even a small donation and to larger donors and investors, it will guarantee their money will not be lost or wasted. 1. Sister Vilma Tallone. I have known my cousin Sister Vilma Tallone for over 50 years, from when we were kids playing at her father’s farm. I visited her 26 years ago at Oyem (Gabon) at a mission where I witnessed her work in education and assistance to a large community, including a group of lepers. The next time I visited her was four months ago at Castel Gandolfo as the elected Councillor General for Administration of 14,000 sisters of the Salesian Sisters of Don Bosco, Daughters of Mary Help of Christians. Sister Vilma, as a leader dedicated to alleviating suffering in the world, could only be open and supportive to the two causes: alleviating suffering by greatly reducing cancer death and cost and by the elimination of malnutrition in the world with the money saved. 38

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

When I approached Sister Vilma she immediately said that she would contact the newspaper Osservatore Romano to ask if they would write an informative article about the Leonardo da Vinci competition held at the University of Pavia to identify the solution using particle physics having the highest potential to reduce cancer death and cost, emphasizing the public scientific scrutiny of all projects submitted and nominated. She said that a sister at the institute, had been a speaker at Radio Vaticana and would talk to its director about the possibility of an interview similar to series of interviews and programs I conducted in 20102011, which totaled 16 hours at Radio Flash in Turin. I had a few more follow up conversations with her, but at the beginning of October she told me that the sister who worked at the radio had had her meeting with the Director of Radio Vaticana and he had expressed no interest. My immediate reaction was surprise followed by the thought that there must have been some kind of miscommunication. I truly believed that a dialogue would solve the miscommunication problem. I asked Sister Vilma if there was a lack of interest in the cancer problem itself, in the analysis and solution that I had presented, or if they knew of a solution more efficient and less costly than mine. Sister Vilma helped to pursue the truth and put me in direct contact with Radio Vaticana. In order to better explain the issue, I sent some material via email and talked on the phone with staff member Journalist Fabio Colagrande on October 14, 2011 of the 105 Radio Vatican program. On October 19, 2011, the Director of the Program 105, Luca Collodi, confirmed via phone that they had received my material that they were evaluating it. The following day, Collodi granted me an interview for the last week of November 2011. By supporting the “dialogue,” Sister Vilma was helping to make the truth prevail, no matter what that truth was. For example, if after reading the material Collodi had silenced the information because he could provide references to refute my data and/or claims, then the citizens or the cancer patients could verify if this was indeed the “truth.” However, from the newspaper Osservatore Romano, Sister Vilma received the answer that no article could be published on the discussions I had with world experts to identify the solution with the highest potential to reduce cancer death and cost. As I had done for Radio Vaticana, and for the same reasons, I sent the Director of the Osservatore Romano, Dr. Giovanni Maria Vian, the same material, and sent him this letter on November 10, 2011, hoping to receive an explanation for their lack of interest. Again, a “dialogue” will allow the truth to emerge: Are they not publishing because of a lack of interest in the subject matter, did they misinterpret my original information, does the Director of the Osservatore Romano have solid “arguments” to refute and/or invalidate my claims? In this latter case, because of the importance of the event that was public, everyone should know about his refuting claims and I should have the opportunity to clarify. I understand the many issues that need to be announced on Vatican Radio and in the Osservatore Romano, but surely cancer, a problem affecting over 40% of the world population, taking 6.5 million premature lives per year, and having an economical impact of $1.4 trillion/year should receive urgent attention. Especially since its economical impact can be greatly reduced with the money saved used to greatly reduce malnutrition in the world alleviating much suffering (the same goal as the 14,000 Sisters and many others within the Vatican). D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

39

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

On behalf of those who are suffering in the world, be it from cancer, malnutrition, or some other disease, I thank Sister Vilma and all people like her who dedicate their lives to serving others. And I encourage them to spread the message of this document to decision makers who are in a position of disseminating the information, so that honesty will prevail to the benefit of mankind through science, especially as it pertains to alleviating suffering brought on by cancer and malnutrition. 2. Don Carlo Semeria and don Silvio Ruffino. The same recommendation is for don Carlo Semeria, a missionary in Brazil, who last year attempted to have an article on my innovations in early cancer detection and how they compare with other projects published the Italian newspaper “La Voce del Popolo”. Unfortunately the resulting article 120 by Lara Reale did not support early cancer detection or mention any of my documents, rather she supported the theory that early detection just prolongs the period that people know they are going to be ill before dying, so that readers were unable to judge for themselves on the merits of early detection by accessing the data that I provided. Even in this case, a “dialogue” with the journalist or with the director of the newspaper would have laid out the “truth” and avoided the deception and/or confusion their readers were subjected to with unsupported information. I refuted120 Lara Reale’s “message” by providing scientific supporting arguments that early detection is indeed effective in saving lives, but she has never corrected the article. Don Silvio is another missionary I know who was working with Don Carlo in Brazil but now has a remote parish in the Italian mountains. He and others like him should continue to disseminate the truth by promoting the “dialogue” with the people, printing the information about these events in local bulletins, inviting me to give a seminar and discussion as occurred on August 21, 2010 in Dallas, which will point the way to a paradigm change in cancer research in order to obtain effective results. 3. Father Cesare Falletti. I have known Father Cesare Falletti since 1967 when he was Vice Director of the Seminar in Turin, where I had a room-and-board in the same building and was attending the Technical Institute Avogradro. Starting in 1972, I spent a few periods of time, 4 to 7 days at the Abbaye de Lérins, where Father Cesare became a Cistercian Monk. There, I was nurtured by his words explaining what a “pure heart’ is and how to stand up for what is right, no matter how difficult it is and not lose focus on the essentials, pursuing the “truth” that sets us free without fearing the obstacles or distractions that put one off track from the main objective. I remember our long conversations in which we compared living actively or passively. When living passively one does what is more convenient and easy without questioning if it is disrespectful to anyone. Living passively generates injustice instead of assuming responsibility for our actions. Living actively, on the other hand, means doing what is right, even if it requires more effort and exposes one to criticism and slander from others. Father Cesare always encouraged me to be a protagonist and to choose in favor of the good, positive goals and in favor of justice. He reminded me always to check out consistency in what we say and do and how we live. I still remember his advice, and I am grateful to him for telling me, in particular, that pursuing the “truth” will set one free. 4. Sally Crawford. A partner and pro bono coordinator of Dallas Jones Day (see also Jones Day Pro Bono program33 worldwide), whom I have known and worked with for several 40

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

years. (Jones Day, a legal institution with more than 2,500 lawyers on five continents, is based on a set of core principles - the most critical of which is a relentless focus on client service that transcends individual interests. It is one of the largest law firms in the world and boasts clients from more than half the Fortune 500 companies in the world). She is familiar with my innovations and their life-saving benefits as well as the reduced costs to cancer patients. Ms. Crawford is also Director of the Dallas Bar Association, Texas Business Law Foundation, Dallas Entrepreneurship Institute, the College of the State Bar of Texas, and Legal Aid of North West Texas. What Ms. Crawford does for the community is commendable, including giving lectures on pro bono causes to young students at universities. I realize that her time is limited; however, I would like to invite her (or any member of Jones Day worldwide Pro Bono program33) to coordinate pro bono assistance to eliminate barriers and support laws favorable to cancer patients. C.7.1 A few examples of specific issues that need pro bono assistance C.7.1.1

FERMIlab silencing the truth to the benefit of mankind

The pro bono help of a professional attorney could have quickly and simply stopped the alleged attempt by some to suppress the scientific truth that would accelerate progress. A FERMIlab scientist made the pretentious claim that the Leonardo da Vinci web site (see Chapter C.5.2) which has the goal to identify the solution with the highest impact in the field of particle physics of reducing cancer death and cost was marketing, and in some way (not explained) offensive to FERMIlab. The website was subsequently blocked. Letters and phone calls from a scientist to leaders of FERMIlab, to their legal department, the Department of Energy, and to the web page service provider GoDaddy could not resolve the problem. Perhaps a simple letter from a law firm such as Jones Day to FERMIlab’s legal Department, their Scientific Director, and the DOE legal department asking them to formally substantiate their claim that the website LeonardoDaVinciPrize.org was doing marketing and offending FERMIlab scientists would resolve the deadlock so that FERMIlab will write a letter to GoDaddy recanting what they wrote in June 2011. (Now the LeonardoDaVinciPrize.info web site contains an exact replica of the LeonardoDaVinciPrize.org website when it was shut down in June so that anyone can see for himself whether the FERMIlab scientist had any grounds for his accusation of marketing which shut down the site. This action is similar to other actions aimed at silencing or discrediting true science that have occurred during the past years and have prevented the delivery of the right message to get funding. In 2009, for example, journalist Paolo Tomatis wrote in his newspaper in Italy questionable statements that hurt cancer patients. He took the opinion of a scientist that he presented as one of the best experts in the nation as fact. The statement was that Pet is never used to diagnose a tumor. It cannot be used for that purpose. “Pet works only if we know already where a tumor is located.” Then he adds, “Crosetto cannot allude that his device can be used to identify cancer at an early stage.” Paolo Tomatis wrote several other untrue statements, some of which were easy to disprove such as that my web site was funded by Tecnogranda. Even a letter by the Director of Tecnogranda stating that this was not true did not cause Paolo Tomatis to rectify his untrue reporting. The Italian Court let him walk away even when the law very clearly should have condemned him. Several lawyers said that an Appeal to the Corte di Cassazione would find him guilty; however, because there was no D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

41

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

pro-bono support and funding, Paolo Tomatis received no consequence for his actions and walked away. Those who read his newspaper, however, did not fund the 3D-CBS technology because they believed these unscientific incompetent statements by his expert physicist. C.7.1.2

CPRIT “Triaged out” Beneficial Project

Two years ago I submitted a proposal to CPRIT (Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas) for grant funding, but my proposal was not even considered. I was told that the review panel scientists “Triaged out” (ignored because it was not considered a priority) my proposal solely based on the title, 1500 characters “Abstract” and 1500 characters “Significance” which had “not sufficiently captured reviewer’s interest” (see line 136 at page 36 of the request for public comments to CPRIT Grant rules); Yet their CEO, Mr. Gibson, confirmed in a letter I received on September 23, 2009, that their Statute and Mission are the same as my mission clearly stated in the title, abstract, and significance, which is to reduce premature cancer death at a lower cost per life saved compared to current costs. The title of the grant submission echoed Gibson’s words: “3D Complete body screening for Early Cancer Detection targeted to Reduce Premature Cancer Death at a Lower cost per life saved compared to current costs”. I was introduced to CEO Bill Gibson by Senator Jane Nelson of Texas, who had started the initiative, along with Lance Armstrong and other Texas Legislators, to collect $3 billion in taxpayer money specifically for the purpose of cancer research to be given to CPRIT. Senator Nelson had become part of the cultural exchange program that I organized for over 10 years between my home town and Texas, and the international community of this cultural exchange closely followed her initiative and her promise that when the $3 billion budget was approved, my project would be among the first to be evaluated by CPRIT’s scientific review panel. She, therefore, established contact with CPRIT’s CEO Gibson, and Gibson himself recommended that I submit my innovative technology, stating that my goal was exactly CPRIT’s goal: to reduce cancer death and cost. Why then did CPRIT’s scientific panel not even look at my proposal? Why are influential scientists not making decisions that benefit mankind? Are they incompetent, or is someone driving them in a different direction? My proposal was not rejected for its content (CPRIT staff confirmed on a phone conversation that reviewers were not allowed to read my 15 page research proposal as it is also specified in CPRIT Grant rules on page 43, lines 227-228) but on its title, abstract and significance, which are in line with CPRIT’s goal. Clearly, the scientists of CPRIT’s review panel ignored not only the statement in the letter of their CEO but also the rules of CPRIT. Only a professional attorney can determine which laws were breached and make scientists comply. I am not able to enforce the laws which, when broken, are to the detriment of the cancer patient because I do not have the personal funding it would require. C.7.1.3

NIH Program Manager’s answer “you should make reviewers’ happy” instead of asking them to support with scientific arguments their rejection claims

An in-depth investigation should be carried out to determine whether procedures and actions followed by government institutions such as NIH, CPRIT, and others comply with the rules and regulations they are supposed to follow. As a scientist and inventor before becoming involved in medical imagining, I submitted several proposals over the years to the Department Of Defense (DOD) and Department Of Energy (DOE), for which I received a total of about one million dollars for similar work 42

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

in particle detection. However, this work was aimed at fundamental research in experiments for high Energy Physics. Later, when I proposed these same techniques considered valuable by FERMIlab, CERN, BNL that could have medical applications for saving lives and costs, I have never received a penny from government agencies on the many occasions that I have submitted proposals for grant money. I have followed all paths made available by the government agencies following a rejection, such as resubmission, an appeal to the rejection, a one-on-one meeting with SBIR Director Jo Ann Goodnight, and a meeting at a press conference in Washington with NIBIB Director Pettigrew and NIH Director Elias Zherhouni. On these occasions I was promised by decision makers, program managers, and directors that they would request a follow- up from reviewers and get answers that would provide scientific arguments supporting their rejections, but I have never received those answers. I received only vague replies from SBIR Program Manager that “I should make reviewers happy” or that I should not address the issue of early cancer detection. C.7.1.4

Axial-PET, FERMIlab TOF-PET, BNL-PET Magic-Box, etc.

A professional attorney and/or controllers of public spending could investigate whether any rules were broken when CERN’s Axial-PET project won the 1st prize at the Workshop “Physics for Health” held at CERN in February 2010. The project’s author even stated that: “it is not a cancer project,” and, in fact, its exorbitant price and high radiation make it impractical for any program for the reduction of cancer death and cost. Yet, as a consequence of that recognition, the Madame Curie Association and other donors were deceived into thinking it must be the best project submitted and have provided funding. Instead my 3D-CBS project, which was also submitted and really is a cancer project, with a much greater efficiency and significantly lower in cost per valid signal captured from the tumor markers, was not recognized at this event and so did not receive any funds. Review panels assigning funding will continue to fund less efficient technologies and projects such as the Axial-PET, FERMIlab TOF-PET, and BNL-PET over mine regardless of whether I submit grant requests to NIH, CPRIT, FP7 in Europe, CERN, or to private associations or foundations. This is because reviewers are of the same mind, which is that PET should measure spatial resolution to the detriment of efficiency. This will happen until the peer-review process is changed to include a “public scrutiny” as occurred during the Leonardo da Vinci competition and now with the OPERA experiments (through its spokesman Dr. Ereditato). Only then, will superior projects gain recognition, as my 3DCBS project did when it received public scrutiny at the Leonardo da Vinci competition, after no one was able to refute its superiority in efficiency and low cost with respect to all other projects. C.7.2 Evidence that reviewers and decision makers do not fund projects that reduce cancer deaths Reviewers do not provide scientific arguments to support their choices in funding projects. The meager results in the reduction of premature cancer death and costs attest to this fact. I can provide details of at least ten applications for funding that I submitted to NIH where reviewers did not provide scientific arguments to reject my innovative technology, but instead funded technologies and projects much less efficient and more costly than mine that provide little if any results in reducing cancer death. D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

43

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

If projects are not requested to provide scientific arguments justifying a higher scientific merit, a more efficient result or an advantage in cost, then money will continue to be wasted. Laws exist which regulate how money allocated for research can be spent, and these laws should be enforced by lawyers so that scientists do provide calculations and estimates of results before funding is awarded. Proof of the above statement can be found in the table that has data from 124,000 cancer research projects that have been awarded $37 billion in funds from 1986 to the present (which is still far from the TOTAL amount of cancer research projects funded). Yet the curve showing the cancer mortality rate continues to be flat, meaning all this funding is having no effect in reducing cancer deaths. The efficacy of the research is not even proven on a sample population, no matter the size of the sample. An attorney could verify whether reviewers and decision makers’ procedures comply with rules of their institutions and whether they are following scientific procedures. Although an attorney and/or a controller of public spending cannot judge if an approach or technology is superior to another, they could, however, verify that all evaluation requirements are fulfilled. If reviewers and/or decision makers, who have the responsibility of complying with rules to implement scientific procedures (and the mission of their institution), fail in their responsibilities, decision makers should be held accountable. When I asked the NIH SBIR Program Manager to provide reviewers’ rejection claims that were supported by scientific arguments, I received the answer, “You should make reviewers happy.” Clearly their response does not comply with a decision makers’ mandate to implement scientific procedures. Which NIH rule says that applicants should make reviewers happy rather than providing scientific support for their proposal? An attorney could possibly resolve the conflict between CPRIT mission statement and its CEO who concurs with the review panel and decision makers who act counter to both the mission statement and the CEO. CPRIT was given $3 billion of taxpayer money to reduce cancer deaths and costs as underlined in the CEO letter dated September 23, 2009. Why then was a promising proposal aimed precisely at the CPRIT stated mission “triaged out” because it did not “capture CPRIT reviewers’ attention”? An attorney can ask a formal question that the counterpart has to respond in due time based on laws where he should indicate precisely the paragraph in Leonardo da Vinci web site that is offending FERMIlab and/or pursuing marketing that is disturbing FERMIlab because they do not agree in identifying the solution in particle detection with the highest potential to substantially reduce cancer death. A pro bono attorney can be of inestimable value. Inconsistent answers by the scientists could result in a) changing the objective that an applicant for a grant should have that is not “making the reviewer happy,” b) disclosing how CRPIT reviewer’s goals differ from its CEO and from the mission of their institute, c) dropping the claim to shut down the Leonardo da Vinci web site. Or if their statement does not comply with laws and rules, the committee will be subject to a lawsuit and be forced to change procedures. Instead, by not 44

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

having the experience and professional knowledge of the law as an attorney has, arrogant reviewers and scientists get away, and the cancer patient is damaged by not having the research with the highest potential to reduce cancer death funded and the true science and scientific procedure that will make emerge the best projects be silences.

C.7.3 How pro bono assistance from professionals, media and advocacy groups can make a difference C.7.3.1

Pro bono attorneys have the important role to guarantee the enforcement of laws protecting the interests of the citizens (in particular of patients)

As a catalyst to accelerate this process, all the tools provided by governments based on the “rules of laws” should be pursued by professional attorneys who believe that their work will make a better world and who are willing to provide a few hours of pro bono service to the collectivity for accelerating progress and creating this better world. This will protect present and future victims who will pay the price if we do not collectively act. C.7.3.2

Example of what an attorney can do

The OPERA experiment shows a few practical examples of what a professional attorney and/or controller of public spending can do. In the case of the OPERA experiment, attorneys could point out to the public whether the decision of the CERN/SPSC committee, who is in charge of approving an extension of the OPERA experiment, complied with the basic rule of not approving the spending of public money on building an experiment that would be able to accurately measure the neutrino speed, and knowing in advance that it could only provide inconclusive results. Questions remain whether the collaboration who measured breaking of the speed of light followed scientific procedures (by comparing the accuracy of their electronics with other existing electronics that could provide higher accuracy at a lower cost) that would prove or disprove whether their equipment (experimental set up) had the capability to provide conclusive results in determining whether the neutrino speed is faster than the speed of light; or if additional years of acquiring new data might provide conclusive results; or whether a smaller experiment requiring only 2 miles instead of 730 Km at a fraction of the OPERA cost would have provided conclusive results. In the event SPSC did not follow some procedures that were part of their task as are regulated in the agreements between the governments that are providing CERN funding, then the public should be informed which rules were broken. Attorneys and/or controllers of public spending should likewise identify whether the decision to declare one project superior to another in efficiency and lower in cost complies with the rules. The judgment should be governed by the “rules of civil laws” and the “rules of the laws of nature” that are guaranteed by a scientific procedure. If any of these rules have been broken or ignored, the media should inform the public which rules have been broken or ignored so that institutions can appoint leaders who care more about research and education at the next election.

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

45

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

C.7.3.3

Scientists should take responsibility and change peer-review to “public scrutiny”

Now it should be clear why I addressed in some detail the breaking news that CERN scientists asked for “public scrutiny” of their scientific procedure that showed the neutrino speed measurements to be faster than the speed of light. By addressing this problem and realizing that the peer-review process needs to be changed not just for assessing whether OPERA followed scientific procedures in measuring the neutrino speed, but more importantly to address the issues that have crushed innovations that would have saved many lives this past decade. Changing the peer-review process to the way the process was first implemented by the Leonardo da Vinci competition from January to June 2011, and to the way OPERA spokesman asked the world through the BBC, other media and blogs for “public scrutiny” of their scientific procedures would ensure accountability. Public scrutiny is the right scientific approach for fixing the problem and ensuring that beneficial science prevails. C.7.3.4

The media has an important role in making scientists accountable in a public peer-review procedure. They should publish the links to the review and publish results.

The media should not ignore its role and should take responsibility by providing a follow up to the 930,000 websites which responded in a few days to the solicitation of their news about OPERA’s measurements. And more importantly, the media should provide much more solid information about the process through which monies are awarded. The selection process should be transparent. The public should hear about my innovative work on early cancer detection with its potential to reduce premature cancer deaths and costs and its superiority in efficiency to all other projects that no one was able to refute. C.7.3.5

Actions by citizens: Advocacy groups, request for hearings, submission to science and technology committees

Are there any actions that a group of citizens can take to pursue this issue, such as addressing it through Representatives and Senators of different countries (U.S., Europe, individual countries)? Perhaps citizens could bring the wasting of public tax-payers’ money to the attention of Government’s Science and Technology Committees, requesting hearings at different levels. Citizens could request a formal explanation as to why scientists are not allowing public, transparent scientific procedures that reach scientific truth and should be implemented to avoid wasting money. Or are all answers that I received in a 90 minutes meeting on January 12, 2011 from CERN’s Scientific Director complying with his role to implement scientific procedures to make scientific truth prevail?

46

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

C.7.4 Disclaimer: I hope funding for research and education can be increased, but leaders and scientists who do not follow scientific procedures should be identified and their errors corrected, or they should be replaced I hope that by reporting facts and data proving that some leaders and scientists do not follow scientific procedures will not mean of funds for research and education will be cut. On the contrary, because I have worked for 25 years in fundamental research, I know how important work is for long term results (that only governments can achieve), and, therefore believe funding for research and education should be increased to prepare future generations to create a more civilized world, governed by “the rules of law” that would accelerate progress by recognizing and supporting innovations. However, in order to achieve those goals, decision makers who are not complying with the “rules of law” and who are not fulfilling the mandate assigned to them, should be identified and advised to correct their errors. Should they show resistance, these members should be replaced by others who would take the responsibility to comply with those rules. We have many excellent and bright scientists and innovators in the world. It is just a matter of giving them a chance to be heard, and the power to use their creativity. Innovations through a change in the peer-review process are now possible after CERN’s invention of the worldwide-web. “Public scrutiny” that follows defined scientific procedure is now possible. What it will take to make a paradigm change in cancer research is the participation of everyone who cares about the reduction of cancer deaths and costs. It will take the collective courage of individuals, attorneys and the media, who will have the strength of an unbreakable bundle of sticks, to force scientists and decision makers to provide answers supported by scientific arguments as to why they fund one technology, project, or approach over another. We must either make them go in the right direction by funding solutions with higher potential to reduce cancer deaths or corner them into giving inconsistent answers that should result in asking for their resignation. Reduction in cancer deaths and costs will not be achieved if scientists and decision makers continue to avoid taking responsibility, do not follow open, transparent, scientific procedures, and avoid comparing solutions to find the best one when deciding which projects should be funded.

5. Steve Fluckiger. As counsel at the law firm Jones Day in Dallas Texas, Mr. Fluckiger has acted as the principal lawyer in more than 200 rounds of private equity, venture-backed, and angel financings, aggregating in excess of $8 billion, representing both institutional investors and issuers, as well as individual investors. He also regularly advises on emerging growth and other private and public software, biotech, outsourcing, renewable energy, nanotechnology, and manufacturing companies in connection with their merger and acquisition, financing, intellectual property licensing, joint venture, distribution, strategic alliance, executive compensation, and corporate governance matters. In addition, Mr. Fluckiger is pro bono counsel to the DFW Cancer Prevention and Research Coalition, the Texas University Network for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, and the International Institute of Biomedical Sciences and Technology founded by SUNY Upstate Medical University, the National Cheng Kung University, and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology. He chairs the Dallas Regional Chamber's Life Science Council and serves on the advisory board of the Dallas/Fort Worth Chapter of the J. Reuben Clark Law Society. Mr. Fluckiger is a member of BioDFW and the Sustainable Technologies Committee of the Technology Business Council of the Dallas Regional Chamber. D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

47

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

For more than a decade, Steve Fluckiger has assisted this cause by inviting me to the Life Science meetings, to the BioDFW presentations, and to events organized by the Dallas Regional Chamber. He was present for the one day review of my project broadcasted to the world via the web, which took place on July 1, 2003, before a panel of reviewers that included physicists, engineers, an oncologist, a director of one of the largest PET centers in the U.S., a scientistific expert in photons from the Observatory of Geneva, Switzerland, entrepreneurs from industry, and also the inventor of the pocket calculator. Mr. Fluckiger arranged for the head of Dallas Chamber of Commerce to moderate the review and introduce members of the review panel. Mr. Fluckiger was impressed by the high level of scrutiny given my project and the solid scientific arguments I presented. He is someone who understands my goal and has helped to explain the message as well as the technology Steve also participated in the meeting at the rectorate of the University of Pavia, (Italy) on September 20, 2010, (see the information about the preparation for the meeting in the minutes). During the meeting we also discussed about “scientific procedures” and the “disciplined processes.”The latter was mentioned to me by Mr. Fluckiger when he referred to the “disciplined process” requested by the Bill Gates Foundation in identifying the best firms producing vaccines. The meeting discussed how these two issues could be used to compare and possibly validate my 3D-CBS innovative technology as the one with the highest potential to reduce premature cancer death and cost. The vice president of the university, Prof. Lorenzo Rampa, agreed to do everything it took to make the scientific truth prevail which would include making comparisons of different projects, and agreed to hold subsequent meetings and workshops. The workshop at the University of Pavia on October 28, 2010, is one of these. The Leonardo da Vinci competition is the final comparison with all projects in the world through a request for applications and nominations. These requests were sent to research centers and universities all over the world in over 100,000 email and press releases to 6,000 outlets requesting comments to the rules, followed by requests for project submissions, and ultimately requests for evaluations and comparisons among project and/or invalidations of claims by the authors that show superiority of their projects. During the meeting Mr. Fluckiger did not make any specific remarks regarding the proposed financial structure I had presented as a way of funding the building of prototypes, except to say that financial structures can take many different forms. However, he also considered it important to eliminate any possible scientific objections, otherwise government funding agencies and foundations might not grant an award. I think that the University of Pavia did an excellent job in putting into practice the words of its Vice President in “doing everything necessary to organize a workshop that would involve the department of physics.…discuss this in an open public workshop.” The University did even more than that because the forum was public and open to the world in the Leonardo da Vinci competition. By concluding this phase of the “scientific validation” of the superiority of the 3D-CBS technology that no one can refuted when compared to all other technologies in the field, Mr. Fluckiger’s request has been satisfied and people who participated in the meeting at the University of Pavia on September 20, 2010. (and the ones who followed the event) have great expectations that Mr. Fluckiger and Ms. Crawford’s expertise would draft a contract that would comply with the laws of different countries and that would guarantee the interests 48

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

of the donor, of the investors, but above all the interests of the cancer patients to obtain a substantial reduction in premature cancer deaths and costs. I continue to receive questions not only from Dr. Vincenzo Vigna, who was present at the meeting on September 20, 2010, at the University of Pavia attended by Steve Fluckiger, but also from other people who would like to see this contract to build 3D-CBS units that would allow the participation of all people interested in reducing cancer death and costs (cancer patients, people who take the solution of this problem to heart, physicians, donors, universities, investors). They rightly remark that now, the 3D-CBS has been compared publicly with top projects in the world; no one could refute my claims. Its superiority in efficiency and lower costs per valid signal captured from the tumor markers has been established. The next logical step is to draw up a contract that would allow participation of all parties desiring to achieve this goal and to guarantee them a fair return on their investments or donations. Therefore, I invite Mr. Fluckiger and Ms Crawford to review the financial structure that I proposed in Pavia, and to draft a contract, with the help of other pro bono attorneys. This contract should include my donation of 80% of the revenues from my patents in favor to the cancer patients and guarantee a return for all parties but in particular a reduction in cancer deaths and costs to the society. 6. Robert Turner. A counsel at the law firm Jones Day in Dallas TX, Robert Turner has been in the private practice on intellectual property law since 1965. While his experience has included extensive activities in patent and trademark prosecution and transaction work, his primary emphasis has been in the area of intellectual property litigation. He has been lead trial counsel in numerous complex patents, trade secrets, trademark, and copyright matters for a number of companies including Fortune 500 and has tried nonjury and jury cases as well as International Trade Commission and arbitration cases. He is a past chairman of the Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of Texas. He is also a member of the ABA, the State Bar of Texas (Intellectual Property Law Section), the Dallas Bar Association, and the Dallas-Fort Worth Intellectual Property Law Association. He is an adjunct professor of law at The University of Texas School of Law (1992 to the present) and on the faculty of the Patent Resources Group (1985 to the present), providing CLE to attorneys throughout the United States. He is listed in The International Who's Who of Patent Lawyers 2007, the intellectual property section of The Best Lawyers in America (1991 to the present), D Magazine's the "Best Lawyers in Dallas," and in Chambers USA: America's Leading Business Lawyers. I have known Robert Turner for more than a decade, and I greatly appreciate the respect he gives our conversations, his kindness, and for teaching intellectual property values. I equate him to a professor who helps people grow in a discipline. For example, I always remember his advice on how to identify and isolate what he called “the pearl” (or the essence) in an invention. Following his advice, I was able to condense my basic invention, specifically related to particle physics, in one page with the other inventions more specific to the 3DCBS medical imaging on another page. I am also grateful for his patience and questions which stimulated me to find a way to explain the basic concept of my invention in simple terms or with analogies so that the layman or a high school student could understand (as I did in the video made with high school students in San Antonio, Texas). This approach led D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

49

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

me to better explain the contributions and advantages my invention was bringing to society that were not possible before my invention. Mr. Turner’s continuing professional work, also as a professor at the University of Texas, will help identify (and promote) inventions that make a real contribution to society from those that are merely business propaganda. 7. Mariangela and Enrico Buzzi. B Besides providing these explanations to Mariangela and Enrico Buzzi in recognition of their time and the contributions they made as participants at the workshop in Pavia on October 28, 2010, I want to further avail myself to clarify any issue that was not made clear in my documents (also in the event Ing. Buzzi physicist’s friend had additional questions). If I have satisfactorily answered all relevant questions that they, and all philanthropists like them who want to support projects having the greatest humanitarian impact, might ask, I invite them to tell their colleague philanthropists, such as Carlos Slim (as Ing. Buzzi mentioned during our meeting in Pavia on September 23, 2010) about my solution to the most urgent problems in the world and how they compare to other solutions they might know of and let me know their comments. Their replies will help me respond to all those who ask me after my seminars what kind of answers I receive from well-known philanthropists. Perhaps interested parties were not aware of my project and my position until today, but after this public letter, these questions will be even more numerous. 8. Patrizia Fischer, Laura Camis De Fonseca. I would like to thank them for their interest as philanthropists in my innovations. I would like to ask them the same questions I have asked Mariangela and Enrico Buzzi. I invite them to inform their colleagues and philanthropists about my innovations allowing everyone to contribute. I continue to challenge openly the approach being taken by major research laboratories in the world to find the best scientific solution to the largest problem existing in the world by comparing their solutions to my own publicly and transparently.

9. Gianluca Gobbi and Roberto Vaio from Radio Flash Torino. I would like to thank Gianluca Gobbi in particular for his courage in addressing issues concerning my innovations to reduce premature cancer death and cost publicly by devoting more than 16 hours of radio broadcasting to this issue. By doing so he might put himself and the radio station at risk of repercussions from those who have high-stake interests in the cancer business. I encourage him to continue his mission and I invite other radio, TV, newspapers, and media to follow his example.

10. Vincenzo Vigna and all his colleagues and collaborators (in particular Prof Sergio Ratti and Prof. Aris Zonta). Dr. Vigna, cardio-surgeon at the Institute for Scientific Research and Cure, Polyclinic Hospital San Matteo of Pavia, has worked for many years on causes that promote the health and welfare of all citizens. In 2005, when he read my third book on the 3D-CBS technology and was convinced by its merits, he organized several seminars, public debates, workshops and reviews of the 3D-CBS technology, inviting experts in different disciplines, involving decision makers at different levels, from science, to health care, to the 50

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

ones in the political arena who are responsible for the service given tax-payers. I will list just a few examples here: he was co-Chairman (with Prof. Luigi Marrelli, Professor in Chemical Reactor and Engineering for Artificial Organs at the Bio-Medical Campus of the University “La Sapienza” in Rome) of the 2008 review of the 3D-CBS in Rome, Italy; co-Chairman (with Prof. Sergio Ratti, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Pavia) of the Workshop at the Scientific Directorate of the Policlinic San Matteo on September 30, 2009 and for the Workshop at the Department of Physics at the University of Pavia on October 28, 2010; Chairman of the Leonardo da Vinci Competition where he diligently and with high integrity contacted authors of different projects, informed all of them about all other projects entries to the competition, invited them to submit additional material in support of their work and in defense of the superiority of their projects with respect to others or in refuting the superiority of other projects when compared to their projects. He contacted leaders of the major research laboratories in the world, even taking a trip to CERN in January 2011 to discuss in a meeting with CERN Scientific Director Prof. Sergio Bertolucci the first draft of the rules of the Leonardo da Vinci competition. Thanks to him, many decision makers, as well as citizens and patients, now know about the possibility to greatly improve the efficiency of early cancer detection and that it has existed for more than a decade! It is just a matter of bringing details to the attention of the key decision makers who care about reducing premature cancer deaths and costs. Dr. Vigna and many others have been asking me if there will be a follow up from Jones Day regarding the discussion in Pavia on September 20, 2011 now that the University of Pavia has kept its promise and compared the 3D-CBS project with all other top projects and technologies in the world and its superiority firmly established through the Leonardo da Vinci competition. He, like many others, is expecting that the draft of the contract to raise money to build three 3D-CBS devices designed to guarantee a fair return to all parties will have the supervision of experts like Mr. Fluckiger of Jones Day (The contract should first guarantee a return to the cancer patient by making sure that the money will be used to build 3D-CBS devices targeted to early cancer detection and not to other purposes, and that it will also guarantee a return to donors and investors). I hope that Dr. Vigna’s support will continue, especially in this crucial phase to raise enough funds to build the 3D-CBS units that will finally achieve, because of its irrefutable 400 times increased efficiency, a substantial reduction in premature cancer death through early detection.

11. Vanna Sereno has been instrumental in creating awareness of the need to reduce premature cancer death and cost by spending tireless hours, day and night, answering people on Facebook regarding the need to compare different approaches to reduce cancer deaths and costs. She has put out press releases and broadcasted on web-TV channels the reviews and workshops of the 3D-CBS and the Leonardo da Vinci prize including the final five hours of scrutiny of all projects. She and her collaborators have gathered a petition of over 7000 signatures and over 1600 on-line signatures requesting CERN evaluate the 3D-CBS project in an open, transparent scientific review. I hope she will continue to inform the public about the need to compare different approaches in an open transparent forum until cancer patients receive the full benefits of the best available technology. Her activity is important: first by bringing authors of different projects, approaches, and technologies to discuss in public their claims and compare it with the ones from other authors in a live debate and then by supporting the one that emerges to be superior to the others and that cannot be refuted with scientific arguments. D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

51

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

12. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, philanthropists of The Giving Pledge, and all philanthropists have a desire to make a better world for everyone. I hope that this letter will reach many philanthropists like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and all 67 signatories of The Giving Pledge and all philanthropists who would like to see their donations having a high impact on humanitarian causes. I hope that the goals listed in the five paragraphs of the first page and the “bending curves” graphs of the second page will be in agreement with their goals and will interest them or their specialists to read further details in the following pages. The following pages, together with the hyperlinks have been provided in support of the claims of the first and second page. However, if you believe that it requires too much time to study the enormous amount of information in these fifty pages (and the thousands of pages reachable with the hyperlinks), I can make myself available to give a presentation, like those I have given to several organizations here in Dallas as well as to doctors and physicists, post graduate students, universities and research centers. I am confident that I will be able to explain clearly, even to a person with little or no background in science, the contradictions between the high cost of cancer ($1.4 trillion/year) and the meager results of only 5% reduction in cancer death in 50 years, and how this contradiction can be stopped in a way that is perhaps easier than going to the moon. If the reader is a philanthropist with a big heart who cannot give $15 million but $50, $100, or $1,000, in the event I do not immediately receive the offer of a pro bono writer, I promise that those donations will be used first to find professional writers and expert communicators who can better deliver this message than what I have attempted with this letter, and your $50 will be put to great use to reach more people. Once we have reached many people like you who have the courage to do the right thing for science and for the truth, and who believe in doing good things for humanity and in getting the most out of donated dollars, we will have made a bundle of sticks that would be unbreakable, and our objective of reducing cancer deaths and costs will finally be achieved after 65 years of promises without real commitment to work in the direction of a change that will provide results.

Forgive me for expressing what I think is needed from everyone; however, my intention is not to give orders. I am driven by a desire to help cancer patients and give the world what it needs in order to solve the cancer problem, reduce its cost, and with the savings, greatly reduce malnutrition. I am doing my part by committing 80% of the net income from my patents to buy 3D-CBS devices for hospitals and to provide free examinations to low-income patients. However, my contributions have no value if the obstacles that are blocking the benefits of my innovations are not removed by lawyers who know how to enforce laws that put patients’ interests ahead of money making ventures.

52

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

C.8. A practical solution to the worst calamity, CANCER, and how to abate malnutrition (and solve many other problems) in the world with money saved from reducing cancer’s economical burden Your contribution can be made in two ways: 1. Supporting the general cause of disseminating information that creates awareness of what has been happening in the field of cancer over the past 65 years and why we are not getting results. There should be a strong reaction anytime a person, an organization, or some other obstacle seeks to block the dissemination of this useful information that would allow a solution to the problem to be addressed. Supporting a change in the peer-review process to one of “public scrutiny” of scientific procedures, so that the right objectives are pursued in different fields that will give several innovations like mine a chance to be considered. 2. Supporting the specific case of my 3D-CBS innovative technology by first clarifying that scientists should aim to measure efficiency with PET and not spatial resolution, and then to get the funding to build 3D-CBS devices as specified in my articles, books, proposals, specifications and summarized in 15 pages at www.unitedtoendcancer.org/doc/30.pdf. The hardest question I receive at seminars, public events, or in emails from those who read public statements from people supporting or working full time for humanitarian causes is the following: “What do missionaries, cancer organizations, The Giving Pledge people, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. say about your two causes: in general in disseminating these information, and in supporting the implementation of the 3D-CBs innovative technology?” Sincerely,

Dario Crosetto

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

53

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

This document is sent with the following cover letter to the addresses listed below: Dear Sir/Madam, Philanthropists, cancer organizations, institutions offering grants, and grants offered by governments through taxpayer’s money, will continue to be deceived, their money wasted, innovations crushed, and problems such as cancer remain unsolved, until scientists take responsibility to change the peer-review process to one of public scrutiny of scientific procedures. The BBC, CERN, and the media who started the “public scrutiny” of the OPERA experiment measuring the breaking of the speed of light should not deceive the public by discontinuing the publication of all pertinent material. As this “public scrutiny” will ultimately determine whether a neutrino is faster than the speed of light, a similar “public scrutiny” of projects and technologies aimed to reduce cancer death and cost will achieve the result. Who will takes responsibility for the wasted money on making measurements for ten years using inadequate instruments that could only give inconclusive results? The politicians who funded CERN and the OPERA experiment? Leaders of research centers in science? People responsible for education and promoting culture? Or the reviewers who approved spending the money, who should have known before the start that measuring the breaking of the speed of light requires precise equipment such as the electronics I developed in 2003 that is hundreds of times more accurate than the equipment they developed in 2008 that provided inconclusive results? Who should take responsibility in making the same mistake for more than a decade in funding technologies and projects inefficient at reducing cancer death and cost, while my innovative technology hundreds of times more efficient than current PET that could have already saved many lives goes unfunded? Until decision makers are able to find experts in the field who can assess before construction that one project will yield better result than another and find an expert who can read a schematic circuit and understand that my schematic provides an accuracy of 40 picoseconds while the OPERA system measuring the speed of light that was described on slide 49 at CERN on September 23, 2011 has a lower accuracy of several thousands of picoseconds, then the best projects with higher potential to reduce cancer death and cost will continue to go unfunded and philanthropists and taxpayers will continue to be deceived. (Compare my schematic and hardware at www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/700.pdf with OPERA electronics and timing on slide 49 presented at CERN on September 23, 2011, available at http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=155620). Because your time is precious, I structured the attached letter to provide all relevant information in one page, six paragraphs, which is further explained in two pages of Executive Summary. A third level of detail is described in four pages, 18 bullet points, and a fourth level of details in 50 pages and 120 references. I am available to answer additional questions that could be sent to [email protected]. I have done this to respect your time and I will be very grateful if at any level of the document you decide the issue addressed is not of your interest to let me know why so that I can pass it on to the people who have asked me to send my legitimate arguments in believing in science and in the civil laws to people like you who are or can be an important protagonist in making a better world. Please read at least at the end of the second page of the attached letter and provide your feedback if you do or do not intend to support it. Sincerely,

Dario Crosetto 54

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles This document is sent to:

This Week ABC News – The Giving back

Nicolas Berggruen The Giving Pledge

Jill Abramson Executive Editor, The New York Times

Jeff Bezos CEO, Amazon

Paul G. Allen Paul G. Allen Family Foundation The Giving Pledge

Michael Bloomberg Michael R. Bloomberg The Giving Pledge Mayor of New York City

Ruth Altshuler 5227 Meaders Ln Dallas, TX 75229

610 Park Ave New York, NY 10065

Bernard Arnauld CEO of the French conglomerate LVMH.

Richard Branson Businessman

Shari Arison Business women Laura and John Arnold The Giving Pledge

Carol Bartz CEO, Yahoo

Eike Batista Brazilian entrepreneur

BBC News Group Director Helen Boaden BBC Dr. Jason Palmer - News website Room 7540 BBC Television Centre Wood Lane London W12 7RJ (England)

BBC Focus, Tower House Fairfax Street Bristol, BS1 3BN (England) Email: [email protected]

Sergey Brin Co-founder of Google

Eli and Edythe Broad The Giving Pledge Warren Buffett Warren Buffett The Giving Pledge 3555 Farmam St. Omaha, NE 68131 U.S. House of Representatives Congressman Michael Burgess 2241 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Gisele Bundchen Environmentalist Brazil Ursula Burns CEO, Xerox USA Charles Butt 335 King William San Antonio, TX 78204

Mariangela and Enrico Buzzi Buzzi Unicem SpA Via Luigi Buzzi, 6 15033 Casale Monferrato - Italy David Cameron Prime Minister, United Kingdom

Cynthia Carroll CEO, Anglo American Jean and Steve Case The Giving Pledge Sergio Castellini Collegio Salesiano Astori Via Marconi, 22 – 31021 Mogliano Veneto - Italy Safra Catz President Oracle

Michele Chan and Patrick SoonShiong The Giving Pledge Margaret Chan Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO) Michele Choate Vice President Alliance Francaise de Dallas Business Unit Executive, WebSphere Foundation, N. America IBM Corporation Helen Clark Administrator, UN Development Programme Maria Di Mento and Caroline Preston The Chronicle of Philanthropy 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

55

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

Luca Collodi Chief Editor 105 live Radio Vaticana Piazza Pia, 3 – 00120 Città del Vaticano Furio Colombo Journalist Tim Cook CEO Apple Katie Couric Correspondent Journalist

Ann and John Doerr The Giving Pledge Mario Draghi President European Central Bank Laurence Ellison Larry Ellison The Giving Pledge CEO Oracle 745 Mountain Home Rd Woodside, CA 94062

Milena Gabanelli Director Report RAI Via G. Verdi, 16 10100 Torino, - Italy Sonia Gandhi President Indian National Congress Gian Battista Gardoncini Director Leonardo RAI Via G. Verdi, 16 10100 Torino, Italy

Cesare Falletti Monastero Dominus Tecum Via Balma Oro 1 - loc. Pra ' d Mill 12031 Bagnolo Piemonte - Italy

Bill Gates Bill and Melinda Gates The Giving Pledge 1 Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052

Sally Crawford Jones Day 2727 North Harwood St. Dallas, TX 75201-1515

Drew Gilpin Faust President, Harvard University

Helene Gayle CEO, Care USA

Joyce and Bill Cummings The Giving Pledge

Charles F. Feeney The Giving Pledge

Julia Gillard Prime Minister Australia

Cristina Fernandez President Argentina

Gianluca Gobbi Radio Flash Via Bossoli 83 10135 Torino - Italy

Lee and Toby Cooperman The Giving Pledge

Ann Curry Coanchor Today show Ray and Barbara Dalio The Giving Pledge

Laura Camis De Fonseca Via Pietro Micca, 15 10121 Torino - Italy John Paul DeJoria The Giving Pledge

Patrizia Fischer Via Artisti, 39 10124 Torino - Italy Stephen Fluckiger Jones Day 2727 North Harwood St. Dallas, TX 75201-1515 Ted Forstmann The Giving Pledge

Michael Dell Founder, CEO, Chairman of Dell Inc.

Barry Diller and Diane von Furstenberg The Giving Pledge

Carol J. Loomis, Fortune P.O.Box 62120 Tampa, FL 33662-2120

Phillip and Patricia Frost The Giving Pledge 56

David and Barbara Green The Giving Pledge Tina Brown Editor-in-Chief, The Daily Beast, Newsweek Jeff Greene The Giving Pledge Eligio Grigoletto Via Bonisiolo, 5 31021 Mogliano Veneto - Italy U.S. House of Representatives Congressman Ralph Hall 2405 Rayburn H.O.B. Washington, DC 20515-0001 Harold and Sue Ann Hamm The Giving Pledge

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

Bonnie Hammer Chairman Cable Entertainment and Cable Studio, NBCU

Tillmann Hein Former President Dallas Goethe Center P.O.Box 600533 Dallas, TX 75360

Lyda Hill The Giving Pledge

Barron Hilton The Giving Pledge

Lilliana Pejovich Hollister Plano, Texas Arianna Huffington Editor-In-Chief, AOL Huffington Post Media Group Jon and Karen Huntsman The Giving Pledge

Carl Icahn The Giving Pledge 767 5th Ave New York, NY 10153 Joan and Irwin Jacobs The Giving Pledge U.S. House of Representatives Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson - TX30 2468 Rayburn Office Building Washington, DC 20515

Gail kelly CEO, Westpac Group

Alfred E. Mann The Giving Pledge

Vinod and Neeru Khosla The Giving Pledge

Joe and Rika Mansueto The Giving Pledge

Sidney Kimmel The Giving Pledge

Bernie and Billi Marcus The Giving Pledge

Rich and Nancy Kinder The Giving Pledge 2929 Lazy lane Blvd Houston, TX 77019 Charles Koch Co-owner, Chairman, CEO of Koch Industries David Koch Co-owner, executive VicePresident of Koch Industries

Marissa Mayer VP Maps Google Angela Merkel Chancellor of Germany Michael and Lori Milken The Giving Pledge 1250 4th St. Santa Monica, CA 90401 George P. Mitchell The Giving Pledge

Christine Lagarde Managing Director International Monetary Fund

Lakshmi Mittal Indian Steel Magnate

Dalai Lama Dalai Lama, Tibet

Thomas S. Monaghan The Giving Pledge

Elaine and Ken Langone The Giving Pledge

Ann Montgomery 1401 Thistlewood Dr. DeSoto, TX 75115-7735

Gerry and Marguerite Lenfest The Giving Pledge

Lorry I. Lokey The Giving Pledge

Ban Ki Moon Secretary general United Nations Tashia and John Morgridge The Giving Pledge

Angelina Jolie Humanitarian

George Lucas The Giving Pledge

Dustin Moskovitz The Giving Pledge

George B. Kaiser The Giving Pledge

Duncan and Nancy MacMillan The Giving Pledge

Risa Lavizzo-Mourey CEO, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

57

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

Calogero Mulone Piazza della Repubblica, 18 Santo Stefano Quisquina – Italy Rupert Murdoch CEO, News Corp. Geoff Brumfield Sunil Kumar NATUREnews Indra Nooyi CEO PepsiCo

Dr. Dennis Overbye The New York Times 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

T. Boone Pickens The Giving Pledge 8117 Preston Rd. Dallas, TX 75225 Giuseppina Pigolotti Mayor, Villa d'Almè – Via Locatelli Milesi 16 – 24018 Villa d'Almè – Italy

Silvio Ruffino Parrocchia San Martino Vescovo Via Murasse 17 – 10070 Mezzenile - Italy

Lorenzo Rampa Vice President University Corso Strada Nuova, 65 27100 Pavia - Italy

Aung San Suu Kyi General Secretary, National League for Democracy Burma

Georgina Rinehart Mining Tycoon

Julian H. Robertson, Jr. The Giving Pledge Pierre and Pam Omidyar The Giving Pledge

Amancio Ortega Spanish entrepreneur

Bernard and Barbro Osher The Giving Pledge

Larry Page CEO of Google

Amy Pascal Co-Chairman of Sony Picture Entertainment

Ronald O. Perelman The Giving Pledge

Ross Perot Foundation P.O.Box 269014 Plano, TX 75026 Peter G. Peterson The Giving Pledge 58

Robert B Rowling 600 Las Colinas Blvd E Irvin, TX 75039

Sheryl Sandberg COO Facebook

Herb and Marion Sandler The Giving Pledge

David Rockefeller The Giving Pledge Judith Rodin President of The Rockefeller Foundation Charlie Rose Inc. 731 Lexington Ave New York, NY 10022

Denny Sanford The Giving Pledge

Vicki and Roger Sant The Giving Pledge

Diane Sawyer News Anchor, World News Edward W. and Deedie Potter Rose The Giving Pledge

Irene Rosenfeld CEO Kraft Foods

Dilma Rousseff President of Brazil Joanne JK Rowling Author David M. Rubenstein The Giving Pledge

Lynn Schusterman The Giving Pledge

Walter Scott, Jr. The Giving Pledge

Kathleen Sebelius Secretary of health and Human Services

Tom and Cindy Secunda The Giving Pledge

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

Carlo Semeria Passagem Alegre 66 – COQUEIRO - 7113.220 ANANINDEUA - PARA' BRASIL Ms Vanna Sereno United to End Cancer Viale Martiri Indipendenza, 6 12045 FOSSANO (Italy)

Josette Sheeran Executive Director, UN World Food Programme

Annette and Harold Simmons The Giving Pledge 5430 Lyndon B Johnson Fwy Dallas, Tx 75240 Jim and Marilyn Simons The Giving Pledge Mona Simpson Author Jeff Skoll The Giving Pledge

Carlos Slim Carlos Slim Mexican Businessman

George Soros Hungarian-American Businessman Katie Jacobs Stanton VP, International Strategy, Twitter Angiolino Stella President University Corso Strada Nuova, 65 27100 Pavia - Italy Jim and Virginia Stowers The Giving Pledge

Vilma Tallone Institute of the Daughters of Mary Help of Christians Via dell'Ateneo Salesiano 81 00139 Roma - Italy Tom Steyer and Kat Taylor The Giving Pledge

Matteo Tironi Via Mons. P. Sigismondi, 18 24018 Villa d'Almè - Italy

Maurizio Tisato Collegio Salesiano Astori Via Marconi, 22 – 31021 Mogliano Veneto - Italy Michael Trovalli President Italian Club of Dallas 14865 Inwood Rd Addison, TX 75001 Mr. Robert Turner Jones Day 2727 North Harwood St. Dallas, TX 75201-1515

Ted Turner The Giving Pledge

Dr. Jon Swartz, USA Today 7950 Jones Branch Drive McLean, VA 22108-0605

Giovanni Maria Vian Director "L'Osservatore Romano" 00120 Cittá del Vaticano Vincenzo Vigna Hospital San Matteo IRCCS Viale Golgi, 19, 27100 Pavia PV, Italy Marcus Brauchli, Executive Editor The Washington Post 1150 15th St. NW Washington, DC 20071 Email: [email protected] Anne Sweeney Co-Chair of Disney Media Network – ABC Television Group And SHELLY BANJO ROBERT A. GUTH Wall Street Journal 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Alice Walton Co-owner Wal-Mart

Christy Walton Co-owner Wal-Mart Jim Walton Co-owner Wal-Mart

Robson Walton Co-owner Wal-Mart Danilo Verra Via Castelletto Stura, 19 12100 Cuneo (Cuneo) Italy

Bianca Vetrino Via Valero, 3 Pino Torinese - Italy

Sanford and Joan Weill The Giving Pledge

Shelby White The Giving Pledge Oprah Winfrey Television

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

59

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

Susan Wojcicki SVP, Advertizing Google

Charles Zegar and Merryl Snow Zegar The Giving Pledge

Silvio Zanus President Cultural Center Astori Collegio Salesiano Astori Via Marconi, 22 – 31021 Mogliano Veneto - Italy

Karl Ziebarth Co-Chairman Dallas Goethe Center Program Committee P.O.Box 600533 Dallas, TX 75360

Mark Zuckerberg The Giving Pledge CEO President of Facebook 471 Emerson St. Palo Alto, CA 94301

Ongoing work: Because of the enthusiastic99 response from people who attended my seminars in the U.S. and in Italy as one can see in their testimonials100 and because they are asking what kind of responses I receive from other responsible citizens up to the highest level of decision makers, I will provide updated information at the blog: http://www.crosettofoundation.com/home.php?p=blog. This document will also be updated for the electronic version available at: www.UnitedToEndCance.org/doc/100.pdf. Following is an update of the most important events to date: 2011-10-02 and additional documentation sent at a later date to BBC Dr. Jason Palmer – News website Room 7540. BBC Television Center. London W12 7RJ (England): www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/130.pdf. 2011-12-15. Meeting at the Dallas Office of U.S. House of Representative, The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Documentation submitted: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/110.pdf. Minutes of the meeting: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/111.pdf. 2012-01-11. Meeting with U.S. House of Representative The Honorable Dr. Michael C. Burgess, M.D., Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Vice Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Member, Subcommittee on Energy & Power. Documentation Submitted: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/120.pdf 2012-02-27. This document is distributed with cover letter to the participants at the International Conference on translational Research in Radiation Oncology – Physics for Health in Europe (ICTR-PHE 2012), held at the CICG in Geneva, Switzerland. See the cover letter at: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/101.pdf. See the list of the people responsible in this field at http://ictr-phe12.web.cern.ch/ICTRPHE12/documents/FinalAnnouncement%20ICTR-PHE2012.pdf?view=standard&confId=96989.

2012-03-20 Petition to the European Parliament: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/102.pdf 2012-03-20 Documentation submitted to the European Research Council: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/103.pdf 2012-03-20 Documentation submitter to the Community Research and Development Information Service –CORDIS – FP7: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/104.pdf 2012-03-20 Documentation submitter to the European Commission –DGs - Health and Consumers: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/105.pdf.   60

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

REFERENCES 1 Irrefutable data (confirmed by several sources) as published by the World Health Organization for several years (e.g. 2004, 2008, see http://apps.who.int/ghodata/) shows that among all causes of death in the world, cancer takes more premature (under 70 years of age) lives than any other diseases or calamity. See analysis of these data showing the death rate from major causes www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/43.pdf. 2 Bar graph comparing world mortality of different causes of deaths for the year 2008 in the age group 0-69. Source: World Health Organization. Cancer has the highest mortality with 4,359,880 deaths/year (equivalent to a rate of 68 premature deaths every 100,000 people). www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/44.tif. 3 Bar graph comparing world mortality of different causes of deaths for the year 2008 in the group age 0-14. Source: World Health Organization. Malnutrition, Maternal and Perinatal conditions and Childhood-clusters diseases for the age group 0-14 has the highest mortality with 3,230,918 deaths/year (equivalent to a rate of 175 premature deaths every 100,000 people). www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/46.tif. 4 World Health Organization (WHO) predicted in June 2010 that annual victims from cancer (7 million) will double in 20 years if we do not find efficacious remedies. http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/02/who-predicts-21-millionannual-cancer-cases-by-2030. See also other references at www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/383.html 5 Global Economic Cost of Cancer $1.4 trillion/year. Source LiveStrong and American Cancer Society: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/41.pdf 6 An eight-step plan of action to tackle global child hunger: “Hungry for Change: An eight-step, costed plan of action to tackle global child hunger” http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/docs/Hungry_for_Change_EVERY_ONE_version_2nd.pdf 7 Article published by Spero News dealing with the cost to save 50% people from malnutrition (US$8.8 billion annually over several years to halve the number of malnourished children worldwide, currently at some 178 million which is equivalent to about $100/year per malnourished person) http://www.speroforum.com/a/23223/Global---88-billionthe-magic-malnutrition-number 8 Article published in November 2009 about 3.1 million children who die every year from malnutrition-related causes: http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/54_9544.htm 9 Crosetto’s innovative 3D-Flow architecture for the First Level Trigger summarized in one page http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/291.pdf 10 Recognition of the value of Crosetto’s basic invention in this field that he presented in 1992 within 35 days at three international conferences in Europe, Annecy and the U.S. Corpus Christi, TX, Orlando, FL, and published in the prestigious scientific journals: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research and IEEE-NSS-MIC. www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/420.pdf 11 Original document reporting in detail how SSC Deputy Director implements directives from SSC Director John People, charging Andy Lanford to draft the charges to reviewers of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow innovation. SSC would have to decide at which level Crosetto’s invention should be supported during SSC close out. Lakford wrote the original document and charged Joel Butler to organize an in depth review. Crosetto innovation was considered valuable and received maximum support during SSC close out to allow Crosetto to: “…complete the current development and leave the project in a state where it could be continued…” Crosetto not only documented his work but he also built, in part at his own expenses, the hardware proving feasibility of his innovative concept. However, after 18 years he did not receive funding to build a full system that would benefit HEP and later cancer patients. www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/419.pdf 12 One page summary of the key innovations of the 3D-CBS technology. The key elements are in five main areas. Innovative electronics enables innovations in a different, simplified detector assembly, which in turn enables the innovations in the capability of executing complex real-time algorithms. Additional innovations, such as the ones that enable the use of more economical crystals that allow increased FOV keeping the entire device at a reasonable cost, can be achieved as a result of the combination of the previous innovations. www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/254.pdf. See also slides 40, 41, 44, 47, 48 and 50 of the seminar www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf. 13 Partial list of the over 6,000 media outlets (newspapers, TV, Radio, on-line new, blogs, etc.) that were sent press releases firstly regarding the request for comments to the rules of the Leonardo da Vinci competition, secondly to submit projects to the competition and thirdly to participate in the scrutiny of the projects under examination. The press releases were sent through BusinessWire, in addition to tens of thousands of emails sent to scientists and people working in the field http://www.leonardodavinciprize.com/elenco_parziale_comunicati_inglese.htm D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

61

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

14 Final report of the Review of the 3D-CBS innovative technology held in Dallas, TX on July 1, 2003 http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/101.pdf 15 Agenda of the international public scientific review of the 3D-CBS innovative technology held on June 23, 2008 in Rome, Italy. www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/200.pdf. 16 Leonardo da Vinci Competition for the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis. http://www.insiemecontroilcancro.org/english.htm. 17 MINUTES OF THE OPEN MEETING HELD ON JUNE 8, 2011 AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PAVIA, ITALY, TO DETERMINE THE WINNER OF THE LEONDARDO DA VINCI COMPETITION BY SUBJECTING EACH ENTRY TO PUBLIC SCRUTINY www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/50.pdf 18 Description of the 3D-CBS innovative technology 400 times more efficient than current PET: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/30.pdf 19 Comparison in efficiency and cost per photon captured of the 3D-CBS project to CERN Axial-PET, FERMIlabTOF-PET and BNL-PET projects. www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/40.pdf. 20 Rules of the Leonardo da Vinci Competition for the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis. The winner of the competition is identified based on the results of an agreed upon formula for efficiency that eliminates any possible favoritism: http://www.leonardodavinciprize.com/leonardo_da_vinci_prize.htm, or www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/2.pdf 21 Experimental results from SEER-NCI-NIH showing that early cancer detection save lives http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/233.pdf 22 Bar graph comparing world mortality of different causes of death for the year 2008 in the group age 45-69. Source: World Health Organization. Cancer for the 14 years age group 45-69 show to be highest with 3,555,278 deaths/year (equivalent to a rate of 255 premature deaths every 100,000 people). www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/45.tif. 23 The economic cost of cancer treatment in the U.S. The figure shows the exponential increase of cancer cost from 1963 compared to the increase of the price of gasoline and of the U.S. National debt. Source: Brown, ML, Lipscom J., Snyder c., “The burden of illness of cancer: economic cost and quality of life.” Annual Review of Public Health. 2001, 22:91-113; NHLBI Fact Book, 2001; NCI Fact Book 2003. American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts and Figures; Bureau of the Public Debt, U.S. Treasury; U.S. energy Information Administration Monthly energy Review. Estimated values from 2010 to 2025. See www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/47.tif 24 Cancer cost in the U.S. during the past 50 years increased by 100 fold. See ACS reports from 1963 to 2010 showing that direct medical expenses for cancer treatment in the U.S. increased 100 times www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/329.pdf 25 Primary food in the U.S. during the past 50 years increased only 4 to 5 times (in comparison: bacon went from $0.79/lb to $2.99/lb; eggs from $0.55 dozen to $1.29/dozen, bananas from $0.10/lb to $0.39/lb, hamburger from $0.20 to $0.99, chicken from $0.29/lb to $0.99/lb; onions $0.15/lb to $0.59/lb, etc.) 26 Gasoline in the U.S. during the past 50 years increased about 10 times (in 1960 the cost was $0.31/gallon, now it is $3.10/gallon). 27 U.S. National debt increased 47 times during the past 50 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt 28 Cancer deaths in the U.S. age 50-74 every 100,000 people when compared to heart disease. Source: CDC data until 2007. Estimated values from 2008 to 2025. See www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/48.tif 29 UNICEF, What kills children under 5 year of age. http://www.unicef.org/pon96/hepiecht.htm. 30 FERMIlab’ scientist http://www.leonardodavinciprize.com/fermilab_closed_ldv_website1.htm 31 Description of CERN Axial-PET project: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/34.pdf. Comparison of the efficiency and cost per photon captured between CERN Axial-PET and the 3D-CBS www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/21.pdf. 32 Interview with Christian Joram who states that the Axial-PET is NOT a cancer research project. Yet the next day the Axial-Pet receives the first prize from CERN for the best cancer research project and the Association Madame curie assigns it fundingt. Comparison: Axial-PET to 3D-CBS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqWZ8G0gzbI

62

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

33 Jones Day program: “Pro bono and public service. Giving back worldwide.” See: http://www.jonesdayprobono.com/files/FileControl/da8fc6b5-864c-47a1-9098-787963c2b901/7483b893-e478-44a48fed-f49aa917d8cf/Presentation/File/Pro%20Bono%20Final.2010.pdf. 34 Minutes of the meeting at the Rectorate of the University of Pavia on September 20, 2010. http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/405.pdf 35 Number one killer. See slides 2-5 at: www.unitedtoendcancer.org/doc/60.pdf and page 78 of Fortune Magazine March 22, 2004 at: http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/229.pdf 36 Cancer mortality increased by 20% from 1975 to 2007. Source SEER-NCI-NIH (Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results, National Cancer Institute). see at page 83 of http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007/results_merged/sect_01_overview.pdf and http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/439.pdf 37 The New York Times, April 24, 2009, reports that during the past 50 years cancer mortality was reduced by a mere 5%, while in contrast during the same period, heart disease mortality fell by 64%, stroke declined by 74% and flu and pneumonia by 58%: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/health/policy/24cancer.html?_r=1&ref=fortyyearswar 38 For 65 years we have been targeted with advertisements and false alarm that the “death rate is going down…” while aware that early detection saves lives but innovation to improve it were crashed. See Slide 19 of www.United_to_End_Cancer.org/doc/60.pdf 39 Miracle cures that weren’t. From the article entitled: “Why we’re losing the war on cancer” by Clifton Leaf, Chief Editor of FORTUNE Magazine, March 22, 2004. www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/229.pdf. 40 Summary of the false advertisements for 65 years that a cure for cancer has been found and a list of some of the powerful and famous people who suffered or died of cancer because they could not buy a few more years of life. See slides 79-80 of www.UnitedToEndCance.org/doc/60.pdf. See also references showing meager results in the fight against cancer at www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/382.html 41 Cancer research projects comparison table showing that cancer research is going in the wrong direction because 124,000 cancer research projects (although far from being the total number) from 1986 onward, already funded for a total of $37 billion, did not provide a significant results in premature cancer death reduction: http://www.crosettofoundation.org/table.php?lang=en. See also Slides 51-54 of www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf. 42 Data published by National Cancer Institute, gathered by World Health Organization, and adapted by American Cancer Society, demonstrate that money used to fight cancer is wasted. If the most industrialized countries, with their annual cancer cost of $856 per capita, were getting their money’s worth, their cancer death rate would be lower than the less industrialized countries with a much lower cost per capita. Data reported in the figure show this not to be true because the most industrialized countries are not located at the bottom of the figure. See www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/337.pdf. 43 Data showing that early cancer detection save lives. See Slide 17 from Fortune Magazine March 22, 2004 and Slide 18 from SEER-NCI-NIH www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 44 Cancer is a disease characterized by the mutation of normal body cells into cancerous cells. See slides 22-24 of www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 45 Signals provided when there is a change from normal cells to cancerous cells. See slide 25 of www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 46 Change in metabolism (when confirmed by other signals) is the most reliable signal for early cancer detection. Changes can be tracked through signals associated to radioisotopes associated to molecules of nutrient. See slides 2833 of www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 47 Current about 5,000 PET (or PET/CT) devices are expensive and inefficient capturing about 1 out of 10,000 signals emitted from the tumor markers. See first 67 pages and the 167 references to articles from different authors in the book available at: www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/431.pdf and slides 37-39 and 51-54 of www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 48 Graphics published in 2000 on page 23 and 136 of the book www.crosettofoundation.org.uploads/431.pdf proving that the direction of research is wrong because the misconceptions shown in those graphs have not permitted a substantial reduction in cancer death. See also slide 37 of www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

63

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

49 Program of the ceremony on June 18, 2011 at the historical room Ugo Foscolo at the University of Pavia, Italy, awarding the Leonardo da Vinci Prize after three and half hours presentation on Neoplasm and degenerative diseases and early cancer detection www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/26.jpg. See slide 76 of the seminar www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 50 Links to additional material regarding the Leonardo da Vinci Award: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/61.pdf. See also slides 77 and 78 of the seminar www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 51 Charges to reviewers of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow system invention. This review was requested by the Director of the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) and held at Fermilab on December 14, 1993. www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/423.pdf. 52 Crosetto’s innovative 3D-Flow architecture for the First Level Trigger http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/291.pdf. See also slides 42, 43 and 46 of the seminar www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 53 Letter by SSC Director, also Director of FERMIlab recognizing Crosetto’s invention www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/102.pdf 54 Letter from CERN ECP Division Leader: www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/179.pdf. 55 Letter from the Head of the Computing Division at FERMIlab dated February 27, 1995 stating: “…This review committee found the design to be promising for its potential application in HEP triggering and possibly elsewhere, and to be a technically sound and feasible approach.” “… make it a promising approach to solve many problems, ranging from high speed triggering applications in High Energy Physics to image processing applications of significance in the commercial sectors”, “As far as applications to High Energy Physics, at present the 3D-Flow project is the only detailed study demonstrating the feasibility of executing several level-1 trigger algorithms of different experiments.”. www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/440.pdf. 56 ECL: emitter-coupled logic (ECL), is a logic family that achieves high speed by using an overdriven BJT differential amplifier with single-ended input, whose emitter current is limited to avoid the slow saturation region of transistor operation. 57 GaAs has some electronic properties which are superior to those of silicon. It has a higher saturated electron velocity and higher electron mobility, allowing transistors made from it to function at frequencies in excess of 250 GHz. 58 Letter dated November 1, 2010 to the Spokesman of the Atlas experiment at CERN (leaders at BNL, university, cancer organization, Jones Day, philanthropist and people who care about cancer patients) informing and requesting support to a “scientific procedure” and a “disciplined process” to identify projects with highest potential to reduce cancer death and find sources to fund those projects to benefit mankind. See http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/411.pdf 59 Articles presented by Crosetto at the IEEE Nuclear Science Sympos. and Medical Imaging Conf., Lyon, France, 2000, IEEE-2000-563, www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/69.pdf and IEEE-2000-567 http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/99.pdf. 60 Technical-scientific book by Crosetto presented at the IEEE Nuclear Science Sympos. and Medical Imaging Conf., Lyon, France, 2000, titled: “400+ time improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower cost cancer screening. www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/431.pdf. 61 Drawings of Crosetto’s first hardware prototype of the 3D-Flow system at the booth of the Industrial Exhibition area of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in San Diego (CA). www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/443.pdf. 62 Photo of Crosetto’s first hardware prototype of the 3D-Flow system at the booth of the Industrial Exhibition area of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in San Diego (CA). www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/442.pdf 63 Photo of the 3D-Flow DAQ-DSP IBM PC board for photon detection http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/238.pdf. See also slide 46 of www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 64 Article by Crosetto, D.: “The 3-D Complete Body Screening (3D-CBS) Features and Implementation” presented at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-2003. Conference Record. M7-129. http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/107.pdf. 65 Article by Crosetto, D.: “3D-Flow DAQ IBM PC board for Photon Detection in PET and PET/CT” presented at the IEEENSS-MIC-2003. Conference Record. M3-130. http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/105.pdf 66 Questionnaire filled out by ABO Project inspectors who reviewed the entire project for four days in Dallas, TX during 17 hours of meetings (all video recorded). They approved and witnessed the advantages of the system. www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/162.pdf.

64

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

67 One day meeting on November 6, 2002 with leaders from large companies manufacturing PET, discussing the possibility to improve current PET efficiency. See slide 39 of www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 68 Letter from nine scientists and professionals to President Barack Obama and leaders of the major U.S. research laboratories http://www.unitedtoendcancer.org/doc/1.pdf 69 Proof of concept of Crosetto’s inventions http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/309.pdf 70 Crosetto, D.: LHCb base-line level-0 trigger 3D-Flow implementation. Nuclear Instr. and Methods in Physics Research, Sec. A, vol. 436 (1999) pp. 341-385. Part 1 http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/147.pdf Part 2 http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/148.pdf 71 Crosetto, D.: "Ignored Discovery Now Proven Capable of Saving Millions of Lives from Premature Cancer Death Demands Rethinking the Direction of Research" Book: Astroparticle, Particle and Space Physics, Detectors and Medical Physics Applications. Editor: World Scientific, pp.624-639 - 2008. http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/134.pdf 72 Crosetto, D: “Logical Reasoning and Reasonable Answers Consistent with Declared Objectives for the Benefit of Mankind.” International Seminars on Planetary emergencies 40th Session, Erice, 19-24 August 2008. Editor: World Scientific 2009, pp. 531-560. www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/211.pdf 73 Thousands of people who signed the on-line petition and over 7,000 signed a paper petition supporting efficiency for implementing a paradigm change in cancer oncology to improve cost-benefit ratio: www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/371.pdf 74 Email exchange between Fermilab and Guy-Crosetto in regard to the comments to the rules of the Leonardo da Vinci competition: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/8.pdf 75 Parameters that should be measured accurately by the Positron Emission Technology devices. The 3D-CBS optimizes all these measurements at a low cost for each valid pair of photons captured. www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/42.jpg. See also slide 40 of the seminar www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 76 In order to change direction of cancer research it is important to discuss fundamental technical issues that have the highest potential to reduce cancer death and cost. One of these is whether it is more important to focus on measuring spatial resolution or efficiency with PET. See slide 75 of www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 77 The result of a formula is the “JUDGE” in science in order to eliminate favoritism. See slide 60 of www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 78 The rules of the Leonardo da Vinci competition adopted a scientific procedure to identify the project with highest potential to reduce cancer death which “JUDGED” merits from the results of an agreed upon formula for efficiency. See http://www.leonardodavinciprize.com/elenco_parziale_comunicati_inglese.htm. See also slides from 55 to 61 of www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf. 79 Two examples of Press Releases relative to the Leonardo da Vinci competition broadcasted to the world. See. http://www.leonardodavinciprize.com/elenco_parziale_comunicati_inglese.htm 80 Tables showing the comparison in efficiency and cost per photon captured between the 3D-CBS and CERN-AxialPET, FERMIlab TOF-PET and BNL-PET. See slides 68, 71 and 73 of the seminar at www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc.60.pdf. 81 References to CERN Axial-PET project are available at www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/34.pdf. How it compares in efficiency and cost per photon captured to the 3D-CBS is available at www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/21.pdf. See also slides 66-69 of the seminar www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 82 References to FERMIlab-TOF-PET project are available at www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/33.pdf. How it compares in efficiency and cost per photon captured to the 3D-CBS is available at www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/20.pdf. See also slides 73, 74 of the seminar www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 83 References to BNL-PET project are available at www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/35.pdf. How it compares in efficiency and cost per photon captured to the 3D-CBS is available at www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/22.pdf. See also slides 70-72 of the seminar www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 84 References to Crosetto’s 3D-CBS project are available at www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/30.pdf. How it compares in efficiency and cost per photon captured to CERN Axial-PET, FERMIlab-TOF-PET and BNL-PET is D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

65

  Reducing Premature Cancer Death and Saving on Cancer Cost to be used to reduce global malnutrition

available at www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/40.pdf. See also slides 37, 40-43, 45-49 of the seminar www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf. 85 CERN Axial-PET “block detector”. In order to build a CERN Axial-PET 150 cm FOV, 1050 such units must be built. See slide 67 of the seminar www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 86 Cost for the main components (crystals, sensors and electronics) for CERN Axial-PET is approximately $26.145 million which is unpractical for a commercial device. See Slide 69 of the seminar www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf 87 Poster presented by Crosetto on 11/30/2010 at the Dallas Chamber of Commerce and in Houston on 12/04/2010 at the sixth Conference of the Italian Researchers in the World. Title: “HOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF CANCER AND REDUCE ITS ECONOMICAL BURDEN: Fund only research projects with real potential to reduce premature cancer death.” http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/410.pdf. 88 Projects and technologies as possible venues to provide the highest potential to reduce premature cancer death and cost. See slides 37, 38, 39, 51, 56, 57, 58, 60, 64, 67-74 at: www.unitedtoendcancer.org/doc/60.pdf 89 Irrefutable data comparing different entries to the Leonardo da Vinci Competition: http://www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/40.pdf 90 One page announcing the Leonardo da Vinci Competition for the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis: http://www.insiemecontroilcancro.org/english.htm,. 91 First Press Release on January 28, 2011 by Business Wire to newspapers, TV, Radio, on-line new, blogs, etc. requesting comments to the draft of the rules of the Leonardo da Vinci competition: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/5.pdf. 92 Cover letter send by cancer concerned people to all 435 U.S. Congressman and 100 Senators asking them to write to the leaders in particle physics to support a Public Scientific Procedure to identify solutions with highest potential to reduce cancer death and cost http://www.unitedtoendcancer.org/doc/13.pdf 93 Letter suggested to be sent to the leaders in the field of particle physics http://www.unitedtoendcancer.org/doc/12.pdf 94 Letter from nine scientists and professionals sent to President Barack Obama and leaders of the major U.S. research laboratories requesting decision makers and experts in particle physics to contribute to the objective of the Leonardo da Vinci competition targeted to identify with unbiased scientific arguments the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis and to point out any project in any field, based on solid scientific arguments, that has higher potential to reduce premature cancer death http://www.unitedtoendcancer.org/doc/1.pdf 95 Leonardo da Vinci award certificate signed by the Chairman of the competition http://www.unitedtoendcancer.org/doc/27.it.pdf 96 Description of the merits for which it was awarded the Leonardo da Vinci Prize http://www.unitedtoendcancer.org/doc/28.pdf 97 Formula for efficiency at item 9 on page 5 of the rules of the Leonardo da Vinci Competition. This FORMULA was the “JUDGE” that everyone agreed upon in order to eliminate possible favoritism: http://www.leonardodavinciprize.com/leonardo_da_vinci_prize.htm 98 Links to additional material and summary of the seminar by Crosetto on August 21, 2011: “Challenges in early cancer detection: A comparative analysis of trends from Europe and the United States”: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/61.pdf. 99 Event report about Crosetto’s Seminar on August 21, 2011, published on September 2011 in the Dallas Goethe Center newsletter http://www.unitedtoendcancer.org/doc/63.pdf. 100 Testimonials sent by some people who attended Crosetto’s Seminar on August 21, 2011, http://www.unitedtoendcancer.org/doc/64.pdf. 101 The Golden Rule: “do as you would be done by” or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule 102 List of top diseases causing premature deaths and Economic Loss from the top 15 Global Causes of Death. See slides 5 and 6 of: www.unitedtoendcancer.org/doc/60.pdf 103 Ing. Enrico Buzzi and Ms. Mariangela Buzzi participated at the workshop that compared the 3D-CBS project with CERN Axial PET project on October 28, 2010 at the University of Pavia, Italy. See video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PZCC7VKbYM 66

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death – [email protected]

The logical steps to identify the most effective solution and to help remove obstacles

104 Sixty-nine people have pledged in writing to give the majority of their wealth to philanthropy http://givingpledge.org/#enter 105 Cancer deaths in the U.S. age 50-74 every 100,000 people when compared to heart diseases. Source: CDC data until 2007. Estimated values from 2008 to 2025. See www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/48.tif. 106 American Cancer Society (ACS) – 2010 Report on Cancer Facts & Figures http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-026238.pdf. See also references to ACS reports from previous years showing that direct medical expenses for cancer treatment in the U.S. increased 100 times www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/329.pdf 107 Bill and Melinda Gate letter published at The Giving Pledge website explaining the reason they decided to start such organization inviting other billionaires to give over 50% of their wealth to the philanthropic causes and charitable organizations. He and his wife Melinda write: “The idea of the Pledge came out of discussions with other givers about what they were doing, about what had worked in philanthropy and what had not worked. http://givingpledge.org/#bill+_gates 108 Letter from the Head of the Computing Division at FERMIlab. www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/440.pdf. 109 Brownell, LG.: “A History of Positron Imaging.” Physics Research Laboratory, Massachusetts General Hospital, MIT. Oct. 15, 1999. See http://www.petdiagnostik.ch/PET_History/node1.html 110 Letter dated October 2, 2011, sent to BBC, OPERA Spokesman Antonio Ereditato, etc., in response to Ereditato’s public appeal to explain what he termed their “crazy results”. http://www.3dcomputing.com/pb/bbc_news_breaking_speed-of-light.pdf 111 Discussion with a CERN scientist about OPERA measurements on breaking the speed of light. www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/701.pdf. 112 BBC news and blog regarding CERN scientists breaking the speed of light and the request for help to understand what they called “crazy results.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484 113 CERN Bulletin No. 41 & 42 reporting the “outstanding” measurement accuracy by OPERA collaboration http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2011/41/News%20Articles/?ln=en 114 Interview on September 28, 2011 with the Italian newspaper La Stampa where Ereditato likened the neutrinos to passengers getting out of cars (protons) stopped in a long line on a highway (bunch of protons 10,000 nanoseconds long) who start running to their destination. He stated that those waiting at the arrival point would not be able to tell if the passengers who arrive first are from the first car, last car, or somewhere in the middle of the line of stopped cars. http://www.unitedtoendcancer.org/doc/70.jpg 115 Schematics and PBC layout detail (see at www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/700.pdf) of the “3D-Flow DAQ IBM PC board for Photon Detection in PET and PET/CT” that I designed in December 2002, built and tested in March 2003 and presented at the IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in Portland (OR) in October 2003. The modular board allows the building of a system that would guarantee a difference of less than 40 picoseconds between any two clock signals among hundreds of thousands of channels. See Conference Record. M3-130. http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/105.pdf. 116 SPSC committee reviewing OPERA experiment http://committees.web.cern.ch/committees/spsc/welcome.html. 117 Slides by OPERA collaboration measuring breaking the speed of light, presented on September 23, 2011 at CERN http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=155620 (See slide 49 the uncertainty in signal distribution of several thousands of picoseconds) 118 Video by OPERA collaboration measuring breaking the speed of light, presented on September 23, 2011 at CERN http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1384486 119 My letter answering the appeal made by the BBC and CERN to help OPERA collaboration understand what they called “crazy results” was published on NATUREnews blog #27358 at http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html. However, a no reply was received. 120 Clarification of the main misconceptions in Lara Reale’s article on June 20, 2010 on the newspaper “la Voce del Popolo” after she received my documentation on the fight against cancer through early cancer detection with the promise to write an article to inform readers of the newspaper about my work. http://www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/406.pdf.

D.B. Crosetto / Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Death –  www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/100.pdf

67

Premature (less than 70 years of age) deaths per year (2008)

U002 U003 U004 U005 U006 U007 U008 U009 U010 U011 U012 U013 U014 U015 U016 U017 U018 U019 U020 U021 U022 U023 U024 U025 U026 U027 U028 U029 U030 U031 U032 U033

2/15/2012 +

A. Infectious and parasitic diseases 1. Tuberculosis 2. STDs excluding HIV a Syphilis a. b. Chlamydia c. Gonorrhoea d. Other STDs 3. HIV/AIDS 4. Diarrhoeal diseases 5. Childhood-cluster diseases a. Pertussis b. Poliomyelitis (c) c. Diphtheria d. Measles e. Tetanus 6. Meningitis 7. Hepatitis B (d) Hepatitis C (d) 8. Malaria 9. Tropical-cluster diseases a. Trypanosomiasis b. Chagas disease c. Schistosomiasis d. Leishmaniasis e. lymphatic filariasis f. Onchocerciasis 10. Leprosy 11. Dengue 12. Japanese encephalitis 13. Trachoma 14. Intestinal nematode infections a. Ascariasis

Communicable, maternal, perinatal and nutritional conditions

U001

I.

Cause All Causes

U000

Code

World (b)

3863722 1636249 33735 41936 41314 17 8 597 98594 639755 199914 97825 109 2033 59158 40790 80847 4425 1788 367546 4604 1964 1 29 2573 37 0 204 3148 2779 44 1162 536

4339557

0-4

8721166 1341771 119801 99873 4373 299 15256 1776270 2464425 447969 195112 1496 7686 155439 88235 340158 128342 69027 826908 132915 54289 9887 44057 25980 185 83 11716 16099 14534 81 4217 1852

56888289

Total

327997.6

15637399

COD 2008: Deaths by y age, g , sex and cause for the year y 2008

6406550.5 6737479.66

Population (thousands), less than 70 years of age

3,724,450 2,930,777 2,378,345 2,074,931 1,883,559 1,768,202 1,481,026 , , 1,372,404 1,178,441 823,848 730,121 175,894 59,791

Malnutrition, Maternal, Perinatal, Childhood, c. Accidents Respiratory Infections Cerebrovascular disease Diarrhoeal HIV/AIDS Respiratory p y Diseases Digestive Disease Tubercolosis Malaria Diabete & Endocrine Disorders War and civil conflict Alzheimer, Parkinson, MS

Population (thousands)

4,359,880 4,143,964

Cancer Heart

243439 17468 7 3 2 1 2 40187 55386 16945 0 11 1191 12117 3626 24174 3785 1804 32669 17313 12343 4 1144 4122 0 0 15 3338 1863 0 808 382

336229

661827

5-14

628079.4

58 46 37 32 29 28 23 21 18 13 11 3 1

65

68

404498 134123 157 70 0 13 73 120355 37483 6722 50 159 766 3078 2669 20925 11447 4250 9478 15507 6423 73 3913 5371 22 0 99 286 465 5 47 19

451755

1809209

15-29

891069.2

6406551 6406551 6406551 6406551 6406551 6406551 6406551 6406551 6406551 6406551 6406551 6406551 6406551

6406551 6406551

Deaths per year Age 0-69 Rates per Population Deaths 100,000 (thousands)

801724 222271 1213 471 5 10 727 405899 49740 2828 1 44 243 218 2323 12838 14729 6372 6190 16597 6504 532 7521 2146 10 0 583 435 1246 0 26 8

880731

2797078

30-44

719738.5

665977 227094 4919 2578 5 3 2332 203706 86075 4338 1 273 107 541 3416 16163 21037 13045 4757 16588 6121 1545 7674 1316 16 47 1926 152 45 15 67 2

823278

5001361

Male 45-59

504343.8

348004 133179 5428 4643 4 5 777 29303 96266 1504 28 72 5 94 1305 7469 10051 5625 1852 8368 831 1443 5285 921 1 0 2347 96 53 0 67 2

531613

4753896

60-69

185103.5

79,962 966,291 522,328 1,849,136 359,395 389,682 1,260,452 , , 934,417 510,802 13,683 355,839 33,622 50,621

3,555,278 3,469,493

327123 83917 5303 3840 6 2 1455 4183 137619 1293 0 105 1 4 1183 7749 7323 4701 1044 4407 429 1251 2379 382 0 2 1791 79 144 7 65 0

583134

6036873

70-79

104208.7

6 69 37 132 26 28 90 67 37 1 25 2 4

209788 27694 4121 2983 10 1 1127 261 103324 1323 4 135 29 5 1150 4020 4067 2542 357 1427 0 842 540 45 0 0 549 81 140 0 74 23

529743

5009631

80+

36081.2

1396726 1396726 1396726 1396726 1396726 1396726 1396726 1396726 1396726 1396726 1396726 1396726 1396726

1396726 248 1396726

255

Deaths per year Age 45-69 Rates per Population Deaths 100,000 (thousands)

4636802 879482 63083 55902 49 43 7089 902488 1205648 234866 97908 907 4374 75215 56462 174185 76863 40127 423893 84810 34616 5691 28486 16876 87 48 7515 7615 6734 73 2317 973

8000205

30409432

Total

3396621.88

3256332.0

1516424 28579 39554 39025 16 52 461 95581 596130 181120 97106 107 1998 60191 21719 76728 3931 1567 343646 4467 1901 2 27 2513 23 0 172 2807 2949 8 1160 543

3566241

3987995

0-4

306178.4

Identification of the worst calamities: Cancer and Malnutrition by Dario B. Crosetto - September 25, 2011 (Email: [email protected]) - www.crosettofoundation.org

Source: World Health Organization. See web site http://apps.who.int/ghodata/

253166 17369 28 20 1 0 6 38380 59160 20070 0 13 1028 17004 2025 32845 3583 1614 33466 8981 6231 1 592 2379 2 0 5 3176 2003 0 545 291

363022

603479

5-14

586278.7

3,230,918 570,844 1,667,065 16,822 1,350,431 272,743 50,459 , 77,789 242,824 97,150 110,166 18,634 24,471

93,527 67,018

412943 99004 972 124 47 39 763 173304 52349 5062 50 18 195 2231 2569 17374 6990 2769 10300 8738 4809 10 2274 1752 0 11 126 1367 1128 0 17 3

651886

1284197

15-29

849018.1

31 90 1 73 15 3 4 13 5 6 1 1

175

5 4

400164 94691 5472 422 3001 60 1990 136460 64468 1587 2 83 8 227 1265 11589 9369 5595 5018 8243 2740 893 3842 835 29 0 897 140 102 0 23 1

519455

2987841

Female 45-59

507525.8

262083 55838 3099 1194 547 41 1317 20213 112586 1183 1 91 0 210 882 7706 6398 4018 2055 4758 418 1013 2902 494 1 0 1120 74 88 0 37 8

395560

3240013

60-69

199752.8

324180 38034 3136 1727 4 28 1376 3425 179238 1257 8 109 2 14 1124 7136 7264 5431 1223 3049 223 1124 1490 213 24 2 1109 74 211 0 45 4

561585

5292431

70-79

128926.7

276865 13686 2443 1288 0 2 1153 198 160685 1000 2 133 8 5 851 4195 5064 4015 436 1463 0 961 437 21 21 23 528 77 171 0 31 0

720030

7245789

80+

61712.6

^

4084364 462290 56717 43971 4323 256 8166 873782 1258777 213103 97204 589 3313 80224 31773 165973 51478 28900 403015 48105 19674 4196 15571 9105 98 35 4202 8484 7800 8 1901 879

7637194

26478857

Total

3340857.78

3150218.5

Continue at: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/43.pdf

638538 115090 2013 172 706 35 1101 406220 34161 1824 35 35 73 343 1339 8400 8878 3892 6871 8407 3352 191 4006 897 0 0 244 769 1148 0 42 30

859416

1837113

30-44

701464.7

1848534 1848534 1848534 1848534 1848534 1848534 1848534 1848534 1848534 1848534 1848534 1848534 1848534

1848534 1848534

Deaths per year Age 0-14 Rates per Population Deaths 100,000 (thousands)

U098 U099 U100 U101 U102 U103

U034 U035 U036 U037 U038 U039 U040 U041 U042 U043 U044 U045 U046 U047 U048 U049 U050 U051 U052 U053 U054 U055 U056 U057 U058 U059 U060 U061 U062 U063 U064 U065 U066 U067 U068 U069 U070 U071 U072 U073 U074 U075 U076 U077 U078 U079 U080 U081 U082 U083 U084 U085 U086 U087 U088 U089 U090 U091 U092 U093 U094 U095 U096

2/15/2012 +

b. Trichuriasis c. Hookworm disease Other intestinal infections Other infectious diseases B. Respiratory infections 1. Lower respiratory infections 2. Upper respiratory infections 3. Otitis media e co d o s C. Maternal conditions 1. Maternal haemorrhage 2. Maternal sepsis 3. Hypertensive disorders 4. Obstructed labour 5. Abortion Other maternal conditions D. Perinatal conditions (e) 1. Prematurity and low birth weight 2. Birth asphyxia and birth trauma 3. Neonatal infections and other conditions (f) E. Nutritional deficiencies 1. Protein-energy malnutrition 2. Iodine deficiency 3. Vitamin A deficiency 4. Iron-deficiency anaemia Other nutritional disorders II. Noncommunicable diseases A. Malignant neoplasms 1. Mouth and oropharynx cancers p g cancer 2. Oesophagus 3. Stomach cancer 4. Colon and rectum cancers 5. Liver cancer 6. Pancreas cancer 7. Trachea, bronchus, lung cancers 8. Melanoma and other skin cancers 9. Breast cancer 10. Cervix uteri cancer 11. Corpus uteri cancer 12. Ovary cancer 13. Prostate cancer 14. Bladder cancer 15. Lymphomas, multiple myeloma 16. Leukaemia Other malignant neoplasms B. Other neoplasms C. Diabetes mellitus D. Endocrine disorders E. Neuropsychiatric conditions 1. Unipolar depressive disorders 2. Bipolar disorder 3. Schizophrenia 4. Epilepsy 5. Alcohol use disorders 6. Alzheimer and other dementias 7. Parkinson disease 8. Multiple sclerosis 9. Drug use disorders 10. Post-traumatic stress disorder 11. Obsessive-compulsive disorder 12. 12 Panic P i di disorder d 13. Insomnia (primary) 14. Migraine 15. Mental retardation, lead-caused Other neuropsychiatric disorders F. Sense organ diseases 1. Glaucoma 2. Cataracts 3. Refractive errors 4. Hearing loss, adult onset 5 M 5. l degeneration d ti andd other th (g) ( ) Macular 694 231 1440 1025364 3533652 3463294 65684 4674 361361 125359 36057 37706 21117 49408 91719 2603140 995714 779016 828410 418081 242282 4342 15647 102572 53237 36121871 7583252 281490 413743 758192 647121 695245 269796 1387460 77496 482485 276961 77946 140088 272223 160360 304758 266854 1071035 188227 1255585 318248 1310002 15252 926 27072 178167 79499 539948 109725 17084 71476 96 25 9 7 13 4277 266429 3763 98 45 2 7 3611

46 8 573 155769 766359 750213 15765 381 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1364874 524183 407047 433644 96240 70271 2020 7775 10524 5650 324283 21614 213 124 77 97 623 35 155 48 0 0 0 0 120 43 2215 6174 11690 1726 1043 14722 20507 3 1 14 9457 24 720 81 16 8 0 0 0 0 0 158 10025 63 1 0 0 0 63

376 0 50 27375 81271 79223 1377 671 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 9 32 48 11430 9060 208 356 1411 396 119700 31743 618 170 146 276 695 38 284 112 0 0 0 0 130 73 7682 12118 9402 1998 900 5423 19875 2 2 25 10370 40 281 29 65 17 0 0 0 0 0 311 8734 127 0 0 0 1 126

0 9 19 42856 40322 39043 810 469 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 6 30 25 6874 3525 3 17 2754 576 424335 82011 3581 1001 3604 3698 9323 302 2259 957 6 0 0 0 1112 237 10179 21382 24368 6109 7045 9605 61304 34 21 879 27107 4119 548 283 256 11775 1 0 0 0 2 641 15638 133 1 0 0 0 131

1 9 8 60643 68097 66183 1606 307 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 2 9 24 10875 6203 4 16 3344 1308 1094196 252415 19108 11410 22715 15938 53269 5256 31661 3264 87 0 0 0 2282 1833 15954 14958 54679 6753 27754 15125 81873 1352 42 3147 21864 14697 1403 497 814 24061 14 1 1 0 0 355 13624 138 3 0 0 0 134

0 33 32 65918 141441 137704 3273 464 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 9 13 15837 7830 59 32 5862 2054 3497361 970610 72731 75753 110129 63241 158488 30910 211005 9884 466 0 0 0 13793 15561 36087 24013 148550 16822 115318 23083 100453 1863 66 4498 18211 27623 4807 1358 2283 16982 14 5 0 0 0 466 22279 207 10 0 0 0 197

0 33 32 46283 173729 171096 2459 174 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 5 5 9870 4819 16 24 2750 2262 3932393 1025528 51854 79496 123059 79932 109625 37581 266709 9650 547 0 0 0 45945 25735 34426 22567 138401 17772 138376 22092 66304 1303 52 2185 8900 13909 10547 5534 1675 1737 6 0 0 1 0 191 20264 304 27 8 0 3 266

0 37 28 67459 239900 236182 3624 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 3 2 13 16094 7293 9 19 4063 4710 5205783 1182570 37565 81668 144411 104461 106449 41413 308178 10594 715 0 0 0 102861 41598 39219 27692 135746 22960 161634 27111 115872 465 81 1196 7278 5332 50632 20769 1054 439 3 2 0 0 0 135 28487 355 6 2 0 0 347

0 26 25 59808 299373 294671 4606 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 6 9 9 20558 12365 25 22 4757 3389 4309700 661427 14959 31723 71538 72051 38583 23763 136239 9288 644 0 0 0 105981 33978 26076 19916 76688 22995 114202 27966 176369 671 44 695 4277 1554 116322 29563 510 193 22 6 1 4 0 114 22392 475 13 10 2 1 449

422 154 767 526111 1810491 1774315 33521 2655 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1365132 524210 407142 433780 187779 121366 2343 8261 35464 20345 18907751 4227918 200628 281346 475679 339694 477056 139298 956491 43798 2466 0 0 0 272223 119058 171838 148820 599524 97134 566273 145127 642558 5693 309 12639 107463 67298 185260 58114 6673 55212 60 13 2 5 2 2371 141444 1802 61 20 2 5 1714

54 7 556 138025 725475 710575 14538 362 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1237646 471398 371736 394513 86695 63298 1858 7000 9360 5179 290476 18449 271 22 104 65 500 25 55 32 128 138 16 66 0 15 1331 5357 10323 1708 1112 12397 17776 2 1 12 8749 10 494 50 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 96 8342 63 0 0 0 0 62

218 10 27 31718 93960 92139 1425 396 2034 12 187 1253 0 5 578 253 95 109 49 13609 10054 56 269 2445 785 103084 21721 270 23 114 263 288 30 162 79 192 200 22 614 0 14 3838 8405 7207 2137 1618 3756 15710 2 0 239 8397 8 328 38 29 5 0 0 0 0 0 295 6368 60 0 0 0 0 60

0 6 8 33324 40225 38721 994 510 187969 59030 18513 21474 12554 33624 42777 30 0 10 19 10720 3934 3 7 6144 632 318564 66159 1702 1277 2872 2146 3652 346 1128 808 3419 14121 276 3547 0 138 6986 13514 10228 3240 7694 12795 34728 85 3 388 18557 363 487 100 272 3451 4 1 0 0 2 426 10588 216 0 0 0 0 216

0 4 8 40538 40308 38402 1579 327 164205 63673 16815 14310 8467 15759 45183 20 0 7 14 16345 5191 13 36 10276 828 724716 279096 8014 5915 17780 14866 14231 3279 17740 2842 63217 39656 4135 12599 0 1072 10311 13883 49556 7724 19928 14061 34624 1472 15 2430 10682 2075 947 173 1243 7567 6 0 0 0 1 279 7735 113 0 0 0 0 113

0 15 6 56414 88323 86481 1604 238 7151 2644 542 670 96 20 3179 14 0 6 8 23804 6167 10 21 15550 2057 2231032 798305 22625 28053 53842 49740 52238 19486 86034 7061 161875 104413 19149 41736 0 4762 22877 20307 104108 14726 103377 22620 51131 3491 182 5115 8623 5235 3925 1157 3646 4349 9 1 1 0 5 262 15130 151 1 0 0 0 150

0 17 13 42840 118835 116941 1819 75 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 11 0 2 8 14629 4473 14 12 6818 3311 2693288 698403 19063 33057 56872 56854 49187 27911 102196 5794 96547 57702 19510 32345 0 6233 24676 16090 94366 13112 153493 24068 46087 2316 99 2808 5214 2687 9691 3633 2365 412 13 0 1 0 0 147 16700 269 1 6 0 0 262

0 9 32 73522 212201 209490 2684 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 3 6 25195 7802 22 23 6524 10824 4546708 816089 17228 40065 82212 84888 61854 40338 139358 7695 81137 42872 19822 29494 0 12172 31531 19880 105541 18360 214156 32629 114011 485 142 1788 5798 1209 58798 15778 1697 186 0 1 1 0 1 187 27941 351 9 6 0 0 336

0 9 22 82873 403833 396229 7520 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 11 1 14 39306 19997 23 19 9991 9276 6306250 657112 11688 23985 68716 98605 36241 39083 84296 9386 73504 17858 15016 19687 0 16895 31370 20598 90183 30085 187935 50795 353377 1707 174 1652 4684 612 280018 30682 1142 292 5 8 3 1 1 214 32181 738 26 14 0 2 696

^

271 76 673 499253 1723161 1688979 32163 2019 361361 125359 36057 37706 21117 49408 91719 1238008 471504 371873 394631 230301 120916 1999 7387 67108 32892 17214120 3355333 80862 132397 282513 307427 218190 130498 430969 33697 480019 276961 77946 140088 0 41302 132920 118034 471511 91092 689312 173121 667444 9559 617 14433 70704 12201 354687 51612 10411 16264 36 12 6 1 11 1906 124985 1961 37 25 0 2 1897

U104 U105 U106 U107 U108 U109 U110 U111 U112 U113 U114 U115 U116 U117 U118 U119 U120 U121 U122 U123 U124 U125 U126 U127 U128 U129 U130 U131 U132 U133 U134 U135 U136 U137 U138 U139 U140 U141 U142 U143 U144 U145 U146 U147 U148 U149 U150 U151 U152 U153 U154 U155 U156 U157 U158 U159 U160

2/15/2012 +

G. Cardiovascular diseases 1. Rheumatic heart disease 2. Hypertensive heart disease 3. Ischaemic heart disease 4. Cerebrovascular disease 5. Inflammatory heart diseases (h) Other cardiovascular diseases H. Respiratory diseases 1. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 2. Asthma Other respiratory diseases I. Digestive diseases 1. Peptic ulcer disease 2. Cirrhosis of the liver 3. Appendicitis Other digestive diseases J. Genitourinary diseases 1. Nephritis and nephrosis 2. Benign prostatic hypertrophy Other genitourinary system diseases K. Skin diseases L. Musculoskeletal diseases 1. Rheumatoid arthritis 2. Osteoarthritis 3. Gout 4. Low back pain Other musculoskeletal disorders M. Congenital anomalies 1. Abdominal wall defect 2. Anencephaly 3. 3 Anorectal A t l atresia t i 4. Cleft lip 5. Cleft palate 6. Oesophageal atresia 7. Renal agenesis 8. Down syndrome 9. Congenital heart anomalies 10. Spina bifida Other Congenital anomalies N. Oral conditions 1 Dental caries 1. 2. Periodontal disease 3. Edentulism Other oral diseases III. Injuries A. Unintentional injuries 1. Road traffic accidents 2. Poisonings 3. Falls 4. Fires 5 Drownings 5. 6. Other unintentional injuries B. Intentional injuries 1. Self-inflicted injuries 2. Violence 3. War and civil conflict Other intentional injuries 17326646 220281 1153308 7254444 6151884 402477 2144252 4233863 3278168 284046 671650 2206300 297973 848682 25905 1033740 1021935 775192 44319 202424 74138 167814 37670 8579 3300 4342 113923 428161 5025 15506 1715 117 1596 1541 2196 26804 216035 21438 136188 3937 31 215 0 3691 5129018 3618666 1208691 252459 510349 195227 305929 1145987 1510352 782014 535380 181795 11188

23466 3270 391 1176 3747 5214 9668 19084 1117 1687 16280 23326 1187 5804 128 16208 7440 6370 0 1070 555 557 13 3 0 2 539 190155 2676 7716 878 58 831 790 1162 8955 92795 10335 63960 23 0 3 0 21 151552 143125 16545 7247 8610 13707 27835 69181 8427 0 6042 2385 0

18860 2939 320 1610 5494 2001 6496 7902 553 3134 4215 15596 1675 3652 754 9515 6146 5201 10 935 315 830 35 2 0 35 758 9949 19 60 19 0 3 15 10 1548 5603 359 2312 35 0 0 0 35 205898 182482 58821 5068 11213 9591 39383 58406 23416 5961 8562 8600 293

123596 12466 4084 40066 28270 9703 29006 25605 3009 10483 12114 64911 10141 20855 1784 32132 26902 22976 27 3898 1650 2528 79 2 7 31 2408 12726 21 107 22 0 4 15 59 1889 8104 261 2243 211 0 0 0 211 933119 541610 273610 31369 24652 13699 53753 144526 391510 136532 187975 63389 3614

400873 10134 21002 196992 95239 18381 59125 69044 20952 26070 22022 183072 32631 88076 1669 60696 46779 40122 632 6024 2146 2906 469 28 103 95 2211 5009 5 31 8 0 24 7 21 328 3073 84 1427 311 0 3 0 308 822150 502755 234353 47504 36196 14640 36484 133578 319396 128196 136528 51774 2898

1490765 17567 86298 797017 436096 39843 113943 291774 202768 42837 46169 372986 51894 211720 3207 106164 97204 79840 5087 12277 4522 9117 2419 187 598 281 5632 4187 6 23 4 0 1 4 28 883 1688 121 1430 313 1 4 0 307 680723 470203 186713 53073 52238 13170 30303 134707 210519 117916 72936 18427 1241

1802458 14359 105777 873519 641210 34768 132825 489672 407361 27153 55159 252541 33584 127293 2514 89150 99441 77242 7821 14378 4856 10940 2318 452 514 503 7153 1959 2 9 1 0 1 2 27 430 725 34 728 149 0 5 0 144 289890 209847 74078 15638 38039 6668 12245 63179 80044 52222 19416 7778 627

2530268 17618 152554 1121352 956558 50446 231740 767251 650412 29245 87595 234578 36324 90575 2904 104775 136041 97670 14987 23384 7691 17697 3807 1215 778 687 11210 1408 1 8 2 0 1 4 8 47 706 12 619 347 0 13 0 334 247956 192214 54482 8402 55533 6717 9909 57171 55742 43984 8788 2585 386

2288861 12628 146199 929510 797464 51636 351424 682388 553477 16133 112778 164600 24589 36328 2246 101437 142007 95671 15729 30607 8631 18022 2296 1608 516 775 12825 1257 5 11 0 0 0 2 6 23 593 23 594 501 0 29 0 472 170188 142850 23916 3866 60882 4800 5907 43480 27338 21676 4203 1225 234

8679147 90981 516625 3961243 2964079 211992 934227 2352721 1839648 156740 356332 1311610 192025 584303 15206 520075 561960 425092 44294 92574 30366 62596 11436 3497 2516 2410 42737 226650 2736 7965 934 58 865 840 1320 14104 113288 11229 73312 1889 1 55 0 1832 3501476 2385085 922519 172166 287363 82992 215818 704227 1116391 506487 444450 156162 9292

22414 3477 390 1259 3196 4791 9300 17111 855 1523 14732 23125 1397 6297 100 15331 6962 6032 0 930 552 564 10 1 0 2 552 168217 2245 7310 727 57 712 646 765 8274 84055 9393 54036 26 0 2 0 24 131278 123609 13718 3864 7386 15016 19086 64539 7670 0 5290 2379 0

19100 3899 377 1146 4385 2081 7212 6362 350 2337 3675 15742 725 4221 465 10331 5461 4456 0 1005 454 962 33 1 0 5 923 9959 13 66 22 2 0 21 17 1425 5774 246 2374 42 1 31 0 9 137372 121629 33487 3772 6976 8869 17827 50698 15744 5764 4577 5270 133

88156 12329 3290 22885 21043 5624 22986 25664 2516 10834 12314 43180 3415 11348 649 27768 19864 15707 0 4157 1858 5211 122 7 2 98 4981 9587 14 86 16 0 0 13 35 1280 6263 228 1653 212 0 2 0 210 313747 184538 56553 13853 6623 34128 14714 58647 129210 94959 30368 3390 512

203802 14434 14238 65149 64421 8129 37430 49803 13939 20858 15006 69035 7812 24361 607 36254 32688 25367 0 7321 2564 6890 965 16 10 62 5837 4135 5 32 4 0 0 5 15 314 2267 222 1273 254 0 54 0 200 252980 164740 54342 16189 8061 20699 8761 56677 88240 60378 22343 5085 446

807304 23481 63578 314782 298564 20397 86502 180492 125050 30843 24600 159649 16344 72364 1635 69306 71249 56777 0 14471 4758 12853 5255 118 120 127 7233 4227 4 23 3 0 18 4 12 931 1891 73 1268 190 1 9 0 180 237353 168919 54046 19417 18238 10402 9054 57767 68434 48413 14628 5026 361

1218102 18799 93958 502196 473265 22153 107730 298514 247640 17449 33424 149241 18027 56323 2053 72838 70770 57106 8 13656 5302 13788 4883 411 87 273 8135 1878 1 10 4 0 0 2 6 403 751 11 690 263 0 22 0 241 151165 117322 30325 10768 24735 6289 6023 39184 33843 24791 6451 2392 209

2456119 26541 183130 957738 973461 47007 268242 557458 468905 21918 66636 198092 27570 57436 2664 110422 102586 79616 17 22952 9810 24963 8353 1183 339 518 14570 1712 5 8 1 0 0 4 6 50 782 21 835 372 17 24 0 331 184137 153936 27516 7328 56695 9245 7196 45957 30201 24077 4767 1234 123

3832503 26340 277722 1428044 1349470 80303 670624 745739 579264 21544 144931 236626 30657 32027 2528 171414 150395 105037 0 45358 18473 39987 6615 3344 227 847 28955 1794 1 8 5 0 0 7 21 25 965 15 747 690 10 16 0 664 219509 198888 16185 5102 94274 7586 7451 68291 20621 17145 2507 858 111

^

8647499 129299 636684 3293201 3187805 190485 1210025 1881143 1438519 127306 315318 894690 105948 264378 10699 513665 459975 350099 25 109850 43772 105218 26235 5081 784 1932 71186 201511 2289 7541 781 59 731 701 876 12701 102747 10209 62876 2049 30 160 0 1859 1627542 1233581 286171 80293 222987 112235 90111 441759 393961 275527 90931 25633 1896