Article available at: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/800.pdf. One page poster at: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/801.pdf

Article presented at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference along with 1,679 articles www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/366.pdf

Breaking the Speed Barrier in Real-Time Applications to Make Advances in Particle Detection, Medical Imaging and Astrophysics Dario B. Crosetto

Abstract–This paper addresses the approach I took “Beyond Imagination of Future Science” that breaks the speed barrier in real-time applications, which I presented at 3 international conferences within a month in 1992. That same year it was published in scientific peer-review journals. It was recognized valuable by a major scientific review requested by the SSC Director in 1993 (http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/300.pdf) and in letters from several leaders in the field. A study of the scientific literature before and after my invention shows that the effort to develop fast, expensive, high power consumption Ga-As, ECL, etc., circuits for level-1 trigger has become obsolete because my invention can use cost-effective technology, sustain a high input data rate, while at the same time executing complex real-time uninterruptable algorithms for a time period longer than the interval between two consecutive input data. However, as occurs with many breakthroughs, it takes time to fully uncover and develop all the benefits that I integrated with other inventions in detector assembly, segmentation, and coupling of detectors to the electronics that go beyond the original 3D-Flow parallelprocessing architecture. The basic 3D-Flow invention, together with other inventions I developed after the year 2000 it can greatly benefit medical imaging applications, thus making effective early cancer detection possible while lowering radiation exposure and the examination cost. This paper presents the proof of concept of my invention as demonstrated in the hardware modular system I built. It addresses what has been understood, what still needs to be understood and what needs to be implemented. This novel decision unit (trigger) will provide a more powerful tool to accurately capture and measure the characteristics of new particles, helping to rule out or confirm expectations. More importantly, it will provide a significant leap in reducing cancer deaths and cost through effective early cancer detection.

I

I. INTRODUCTION

WAS pleasantly surprised when I read the great idea of Dr. Hee-Joung Kim, General Chairman of the 2013 IEEENSS-MIC-RTSD to make the theme of this conference "Beyond Imagination of Future Science", by inviting scientists to submit projects or inventions that meet this expectation. It is a great opportunity to see other inventions that can make a difference and to submit my invention [1], which indeed goes beyond the imagination of future science, has the potential to create enormous benefits for society as summarized in a poster [2], yet has still neither been fully understood nor recognized. Perhaps because it is beyond many scientists’ imagination.

II. DEMONSTRATION OF A BREAKTHROUGH INVENTION THAT GOES “BEYOND IMAGINATION OF FUTURE SCIENCE”… Not every project, approach, or invention that claims to go beyond the imagination of future science can demonstrate its claim and show that its impact can be significant. It would be a great service to everyone if the general Chairman who launched this idea provided all demonstrations received, so that everyone can compare how solid the claims are and how great the impact would be in benefitting humanity. My goal is to serve cancer patients and the interest of taxpayers, to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity prevail. The facts listed in this Chapter as well as the chronological report in Table I, are not meant to be controversial by placing other scientists in a difficult position, but to REPORT INCONSISTENCIES in science that are damaging humanity with respect to the publicly declared missions of scientists, research centers, groups, organizations, agencies, etc. that are fighting cancer.

Dario B. Crosetto – Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths. DeSoto, TX75115 – USA (email: [email protected]).

1

public meetings and change the communication style (a new era in communication for scientists) as started by Joe Incandela, spokesman for one of the two experiments at the CERN-LHC claiming the discovery of the new particle called “Higgs boson”, and by other scientists who are now communicating complex concepts to the general public.

In fact, my intention is to HELP everyone with their mission, whether a scientist or cancer organization TO RESOLVE THEIR STATEMENTS AND/OR ACTIONS THAT SHOW INCONSISTENCIES which place them in a controversial position before the public, the cancer patients and humanity. I promised [3] the late Lillo Mulone and other cancer patients I know, that I would do everything I could to receive satisfactory answers from the decision makers, to the legitimate questions that Lillo and many others submitted, in order to put an end to the cancer calamity. This is what drives me and the hope that everyone who has the objective to solve the cancer problem will agree to solve all INCONSISTENCIES AND CONTRADICTIONS that are an impediment to its solution. Actually, I can prove [4] that I am providing a service to the collectivity in pointing out scientific inconsistencies in the best interest of everyone that needs to be fixed. The fact that I have committed to donate 80% of the income from licensing my patents to cancer patients should make it clear that I want to see the cancer problem solved for the interest of the collectivity - not just for my personal interest. Whoever is preventing early cancer detection that can save 50% of people who die needlessly from cancer is against benefitting humanity. He is against the interest of the readers of this document, and is damaging and perpetrating injustices to them. I am providing evidence that shows the cause of this damage to humanity. It can still be fixed, but if, and only if, everyone becomes aware participates and contributes to its recovery. The fact that for the past 50 years the economic cost [5] of cancer has totaled over $30 trillion and the cancer deaths rate dropped only a meager 5%, [6] due primarily to those who quit smoking or adopted a healthier lifestyle, not by the research (while heart disease has dropped 64%, stroke 74%, pneumonia and flu 58%) shows that money and time have been wasted. Experimental data from several official sources agree the earlier cancer is detected, the greater the survival rate (in most cases 90% to 98%). See [7]. Furthermore, reputable sources [8] for the past 67 years state that 50% of all cancer deaths could have been reduced through early cancer detection. Let us consider that my 3D-CBS [9], [10], [11] (3-D Complete Body Screening) technology, targeted for early cancer detection, was made available more than a decade ago, and is hundreds of times more efficient than the over 5,000 PET devices currently used in hospitals (See Table II). All this shows that the collectivity has been deceived and damaged, because in the meantime many lives were lost that might have been saved. My long list of facts detailing the obstructions I encountered which prevented me from speaking at conferences, rejections of my papers, and rejections of funding my innovations, does not have the intent of a complaint for a personal injustice, but is a report of its damage to humanity. The longer my innovations are delayed, the more people will die needlessly, who could have survived. To avoid further damage to humanity, scientists and decision makers should stop trying to silence me when I speak the scientific truth. We should instead address science in

I have worked diligently to demonstrate two claims: a) that my inventions go beyond the imagination of future science. b) that their benefit could be significant in two interconnected areas: in reducing premature cancer deaths and cost; and in the discovery of new particles in High Energy Physics (HEP) by, reducing the cost and increasing the efficiency of the experiment. My objective is to obtain maximum dissemination of these demonstrations to either receive pertinent remarks challenging my claims, or to accelerate the process by receiving funding to build the 3D-CBS technology, targeted to early cancer detection. In this way, what was "beyond imagination" will soon become reality benefitting everyone. In the application for HEP, I am willing to establish a dialogue with the scientists who must now redesign the level-0 (or level-1) trigger of major experiments – something that would have been unnecessary had my inventions been fully implemented in the beginning – so as to avoid this becoming necessary in the future. To demonstrate the first point, I need to report facts and circumstances showing that experts in the field were not aware of the possible advantages of my inventions before I disclosed them, but when they did become aware of them, they did not fully understand their advantages. As time passed, the benefits were acknowledged and little by little implemented. I will show that my inventions went beyond the imagination of those who denied my claims at first, but who recanted their statements when faced with the results. A. Beyond imagination in HEP applications The following are a few examples of facts and circumstances in this regard in the field of applications for HEP experiments: a) A report [12] written by world experts in the field who were part of a review panel held at FERMILab in 1993, states that my idea was “unique” (therefore an invention) and that it was beyond the imagination of experimenters. It is clear that it is still beyond [1] the imagination of future science today when analyzing current articles describing projects that lack efficiency in identifying new particles, because many of the features of my inventions listed in chapter III are still not implemented. b) All scientists approaching a real-time application that requires fast processing at a high input data rate were making use of expensive, high power consumption, fast GaAs, ECL, and nanometer CMOS technology, whereas with my invention they could have solved more 2

demanding requirements with off-the-shelf electronics and a standard technology at a much lower cost.

the difference between my 3D-Flow system and GPUs, FPGAs, etc., he did not accept this dialogue. The result was that at this 2013 conference scientists from major HEP experiments admitted the deficiency of their trigger to find the Higgs boson, admitted it needed to be completely replaced, and the design for its replacement [16] continues to be less cost-effective than my innovations based on the 3D-Flow system and all the related innovations in other areas that benefit the HEP experiment and the 3D-CBS that can save lives through early cancer detection. This proves my inventions are still beyond the imagination of CERN Directors who do not want to discuss the details in a public forum. I gave a detailed report of my meeting with the CERN Scientific Director to Lillo Mulone who requested such a meeting in the interest of all cancer patients. Mulone provided my report to those who have the trust of the people to receive useful information in their best interest [17].

c) The reaction of experts who at first were not convinced by my innovation but later changed their minds, sometimes with words, sometimes with facts and actions. For example, on August 27, 2008, while visiting CERN, I asked Wesley Smith several questions related to his opposition to my claims in 1992 when we both were working on HEP experiments at the Super Collider (SSC) in Texas. Wesley Smith was for many years the researcher, responsible for the Trigger of the CMS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). During our visit he agreed [13] that my approach/invention (programmability at the first level trigger, communication with no boundaries between trigger tower channels, point-to-point connection from the detector to the electronics, etc.) did offer the advantages he had not recognized 16 years earlier (see more information in the next chapter).

e) Speakers from the major HEP experiments (CERN’s Atlas, CMS and LHCb) admitted during their presentations at the trigger session at the 2013 IEEENSS-MIC-RTSD conference that they had to redesign their level-0 (or level-1) trigger, because it was not programmable at the level of the raw-data input. My 3DFlow system architecture available since 1992 [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] would have clearly provided a more powerful tool to identify new particles during the data taking of 2010-2013 and would have saved the effort and the money of redesigning and rebuilding the trigger for the next data taking in 2016. More details are provided in Chapter III.

d) At the workshop “Physics for Health” held at CERN in February 2010, a delegation of the Crosetto Foundation from the U.S. and Italy met with CERN’s General Director and Scientific Director. They hand delivered over 7,000 signatures of a petition asking for a public review of my innovations in particle detection that would benefit HEP experiments and early cancer detection by efficiently capturing signals (radiation) from tumor markers by the 3D-CBS device. The CERN Director General promised an answer to Dr. D. Verra that never arrived. The CERN Scientific Director could not provide scientific reasons why his committee assigned the first prize to the Axial-PET project [14]. He also promised to give me a list of scientists available to address in a public forum my innovations and their approach relative to the decision unit (trigger) that has the task to capture the best events in particle detection (which is the same for capturing signals from tumor markers). This list of names was never provided. In January, 2011, cancer patient, Lillo Mulone was able to convince with an email the CERN Scientific Director to evaluate the aspect of particle detection of my 3D-CBS technology in a meeting with me at CERN. I went to CERN to meet the Scientific Director with Dr. Vigna. The CERN Scientific Director did not find any flaws in my 3D-CBS project; however, he made several statements inconsistent with facts and with the final objective that needed to be reached in providing the most cost-effective tool to discover new particles and to reduce cancer deaths through an effective early cancer detection. For example, his statement that at CERN they had powerful trigger systems was refuted by facts. His statement was invalidated by several scientists at this conference who stated that level-0 (or level-1) of major experiments needed to be redesigned and rebuilt. Unfortunately, despite several letters [15] written by Dr. Vigna and myself asking for a public meeting where I could address in depth this issue with him and his experts explaining

In regard to benefitting the scientific community, my invention makes it possible to have a cost-effective programmability at the level of the raw input data arriving from the detector. This aspect is discussed in more detail in Chapter III. B. Beyond imagination in medical imaging applications The following are a few examples of similar facts and circumstances referring to the field of medical imaging: a) Facts and documents from funding agencies (NIH, NCI, CPRIT, etc.) show that influential leaders in the field asked me to focus on increasing PET spatial resolution rather than sensitivity and not propose screening for early detection. I first began to submit proposals for funding or grants in 1996, After 18 years it has become clear that my claim to improve PET sensitivity could save lives. Some improvements in sensitivity have been made, yet several of my inventions are not being used even though if implemented they would provide a significant reduction in cancer deaths and cost. The reader will find many statements in the references [25] dismissing early cancer detection, as well as its improvement for a cost-effective screening with the goal of reducing cancer deaths and cost.

3

b) Steve DeRenzo, who was appointed in the year 2000 by Terry Jones to review my technical scientific book: “400+ Times Improved PET Efficiency for Lower-Dose Radiation, Lower-Cost Cancer Screening” [11] states that in order to improve PET efficiency, crystals need to be improved and not the electronics [26]. However, his statement was proven to be incorrect by several articles showing that better electronics do improve PET efficiency. Full implementation of my electronics in synergy with the best coupling of the electronics with detectors, detector assembly, algorithms, etc., still remain beyond some scientists’ imagination, yet their full implementation would bring significant benefits in reducing cancer deaths and cost.

3D-CBS project at the IEEE conferences after he received and read my book in 2002 which demonstrated it was more efficient and less expensive, 2) used taxpayer money to build the EXPLORER PET, less sensitive and over 10 times more expensive than the 3D-CBS, 3) did not recommend (along with other researchers in the EXPLORER PET project who are on committees which assign funding) the acceptance of my papers at conferences and did not fund the 3D-CBS to benefit cancer patients and 4) prevented me, for over 10 years from taking the benefits of my invention to cancer patients with a cost-effective early cancer detection device and still does not support my work targeted to saving lives, while his work is for biological research to develop new drugs to increase the cancer business.

c) The executives at Siemens Nuclear Medicine in 2002 stated during several meetings and conference calls that it was not possible to improve the efficiency of their PET. However, five years later they had to recant these statements when they announced on their website that ultra-fast electronics improved the efficiency of their PET by 70% [27]. Even so, my innovations offer an increase in efficiency of over 40,000%, enabling a costeffective early cancer detection.

e) Uwe Bratzler, General Chairman of the 2008 IEEE-NSSMIC-RTSD conference, recognizing the value of my inventions, urged me to submit my abstracts that were rejected the previous year. He promised to provide a scientific reason in the event they were rejected again and to help organize a forum via internet through the EVO web meeting system from CERN. Instead, he received inconsistent non-scientific reasons from his reviewers and experts in the field whom he contacted for the forum to address the most innovative ideas that would provide technological advantages in medical imaging to the benefit of cancer patients. He was powerless in implementing scientific procedures to the benefit of mankind. Scientific arguments were not provided to support the rejections and he could not find anyone to participate in the public forum [31].

d) On July 2002, Joel Karp, General Chairman of the 2002 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference, supported the rejection of my abstract with the statement: “The number of submissions exceeded the time allocated for the scientific sessions, and we were unable to accept all papers” [28]. He did not provide any scientific arguments explaining why other abstracts with less scientific merit were accepted. On August 19, 2002, I received the following statement from Karp: “Thank you very much for sending me your book [11], which I received on Friday. I did briefly look through it to get a better appreciation about your proposals for improved PET. Certainly a very large axial FOV can increase sensitivity dramatically and thereby decrease scan time and cost, while also increasing counting statistics. . . . It's not obvious to me, however, whether the trade-off is effective between instrument cost and scan cost certainly the instrument cost goes up significantly, even for low cost scintillators such as BGO. For LSO or GSO the cost seems prohibitive.” [29] In spite of stating that “LSO or GSO the cost seems prohibitive” Joel Karp presented at this 2013 conference the EXPLORER Whole-Body PET [30], a copy similar of my 3D-CBS, but using 491,520 LYSO crystals at a prohibitive cost in a 215 cm FOV PET, making the overall cost over 10 times the cost of my 3D-CBS device. The fact that he and the other researchers from two universities are building their EXPLORER PET using expensive crystals with less sensitivity at a point source, is because my invention, which would achieve a much higher sensitivity at less than 1/10 the cost, must still be beyond their imagination. Joel Karp should explain the inconsistencies that are damaging taxpayers and cancer patients when he 1) prevented me from presenting my

f) Still today, many physicians, physicists and influential people in the field claim that it is necessary to improve PET spatial resolution and not sensitivity. Others who rejected my articles and proposals to build a PET device over 1 meter in detector length are now copying ideas of my project, but at a cost over ten times that of my 3DCBS device, making it unaffordable for screening, thus unsuitable to save lives. Therefore, in this case, my invention was, and still is, beyond their imagination and in the aspect of providing a cost-effective tool for early cancer detection. See more details in Chapter IV.B. My innovations in medical imaging “accurately capturing as many signals as possible from tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured” implemented in the 3DCBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) technology gives a powerful tool to physicians to receive information helpful in their diagnosis that they can hardly imagine now. The sentence above in italics is still not fully understood by many scientists in the field, including many reviewers at this 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference. Yet many physicians still ask to improve PET spatial resolution. Table I reports in chronological sequence, facts and documents of some events demonstrating that my inventions have been and continue to be “Beyond Imagination of Future Science.” 4

TABLE I. RELATION BETWEEN THE EVENT OR INVENTION THAT GOES “BEYOND IMAGINATION OF FUTURE SCIENCE” AND ITS RECOGNITION AND/OR PROOF

YEA R

1992

1993

1993 1993

1995 TO

1998

1995 TO

2003

EVENTS GOING BEYOND IMAGINATION OF FUTURE SCIENCE AND ITS OBSTACLES Within a period of 35 days Crosetto presented his 3DFlow (3DF) system architecture invention breaking the speed barrier in real-time applications at three international conferences in Europe and in the U.S., and it was published in prestigious peer-review scientific journals [18]-[24]. Wesley Smith was the only scientist who disagreed with all other scientists, stating that programmability at the first level trigger was not needed [33]. The 3D-Flow system adopted [35] by the collaboration of the half billion-dollar SSC-GEM experiment at the $11B SSC project. A major international review panel at FERMILab recognized Crosetto’s basic invention in particle detection [12] as a “unique concept” and that “experimenters would probably think of clever uses not now possible” (which is exactly the theme “Beyond Imagination of Future Science” of the 2013 IEEE-NSSMIC-RTSD Conference). Crosetto submitted proposals to the SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) of the DOE (Department Of Energy) and of the DOD (Department of Defense) requesting funding to develop his inventions.

The 3D-Flow was adopted by the collaboration of the CERN-LHCb experiment for the Calorimeter and muon trigger.

1996

When employeed by Rice Bonner Labs, Crosetto worked on the RICH experiment at the Brookhaven National Laoratory. The 3D-Flow was included in the LHCb Technical Proposal.

1998

1998

YEA

Crosetto received over 40 letters [32] of appreciation of his work from top leaders in the field from competing experiments. This is unprecedented, and is a recognition that Crosetto’s invention gives a more powerful tool for ALL real-time applications.

1993

Although Wesley Smith placed obstacles to its dissemination and implementation, he later recanted his statements by his actions [34]. In 1993 the U.S. Congress cancelled the SSC project, therefore all funding of the 3D-Flow stopped.

2000 2008 1993

Unfortunately, after more than 20 years, many advantages and benefits from Crosetto’s invention remain unfunded and unimplemented, due to the lack of decision makers to follow scientific procedures and have a DIALOGUE that would make the scientific truth prevail for the benefit of mankind.

1993 2013

Crosetto received about $1 million in SBIR grants from DOE and DOD [36]. He hired four people and developed the entire suite of the “Design Real Time Tools.” The tools allow: a) to create a technology-independent 3DFlow system of thousands of processors, b) to simulate at a high level with C++ platform [37] and c) to compile to silicon gates for FPGA, Gate Array, standard cell technologies, etc. [38], [39]. The $1 million grant was limited to develop these tools including the 3D-Flow editor and assembler to develop application programs to execute particle detection algorithms and to compile the VHDL code in FPGA for Altera, Xilinx and ORCA from Lucent Technologies and in standard cells using Synopsys tools. Crosetto’s 3D-Flow concept was validated with simulation, and later at his own expense, was validated in hardware in two prototype Altera boards in 2001 and in a modular IBM PC industrialized board in 2003. Correspondence from 1995 to 2009 between Crosetto and leaders at the NIH and the NCI show a contradiction between their public statments and their actions. After 18 years it became clear that Crosetto’s claim to improve PET sensitivity saves lives. Only a public DIALOGUE with their reviewers can ensure that NIH funding of technical approaches achieve what they publicly affirm. Crosetto’s 3D-Flow project was well integrated in LHCb experiment to be used for calorimeter and muon trigger as it is reported in the LHCb Letter of Intent [40] and in the LHCb Technical report [41]. In 1999 the U.S. DOE canceled US funding for LHCb and ALICE experiments at CERN and the 3D-Flow system faced the same fate as in 1993. He devloped a cluster finder ASIC for processing data received from the calorimeter of the STAR experiment [42]. When the US stopped funding LHCb, the trigger project was taken over by the LHCb, Orsay Group, dropping the 3D-Flow full programmability, causing inefficiency. In 2008 Crosetto spoke to both at CERN who admit-ted

1995

R

Crosetto submitted proposals to the NIH for nine years. They requested he improve PET spatial resolution and not sensitivity, and not to mention screening for early cancer detection (which is what would save lives).

1995

RECOGNIZED AND/OR PROVED

Wesley Smith and Peter Sharp prevented Crosetto from

5

TO

1995

TO

1999

1995 TO

2003

1999

1996 1999

2008

1999

2000

2000

2000

2001

2002

2002

2003

presenting the 3D-Flow project at the LHC workshop. Colleagues who trust the scientific community suggested Crosetto submit articles pointing out the advantages of the 3D-Flow innovation compared to other approaches. Crosetto respectfully submitted a 45-page article to the peer-review scientific journal, Nuclear Instrument and Methods in Physics Research (NIM) and an 8-page article to the IEEE Transaction on Nuclear Science (TNS) regarding his research presented at 1999 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Seattle (WA) [43]. Senior IEEE scientist, Aaron Brill asked for an open review of Crosetto’s TNS article, but IEEE anonymous reviewers impeded its publication. Les Rogers, a physics professor and recipient of an award at the 2000 IEEENSS-MIC conference in Lyon, France was appointed by Aaron Brill to review Crosetto’s article. He had difficulty understanding the basic concept as can be seen Ref. [45] reporting their conspicuous email exchange.

problems could have been avoided with the 3DF. It is unprecedented that a 45-page article [44] by a single author was accepted for publication by the prestigious scientific journal, NIM. Instead, the 8-page article submitted to TNS was rejected by anonymous reviewers who claimed the 3D-Flow system architecture was flawed. Crosetto proved in hardware at the IEEE conferences in 2001 and 2003 that the 3D-Flow architecture was feasible and functional.

Crosetto conceived additional inventions that together with his 1992, 3D-Flow basic invention, lead him to the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) technology, targeted to a low cost, effective early cancer detection examination. He presented two articles [9], [10] at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC and distributed 200 copies of his technical scientific book [11] detailing the 150 cm FOV whole-body 3D-CBS screening technology. Crosetto also explained his innovative concepts to middle school students with analogies of bottling water and sand trays and wrote a book for laymen with their teachers [46]. At the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference, Terry Jones [47] from Hammersmith Hospital appointed Steve DeRenzo to review Crosetto’s book. DeRenzo stated that in order to improve PET efficiency, crystals should be improved and not the electronics [26]. Crosetto demonstrated in hardware at the 2001 IEEENSS-MIC Conference in San Diego (CA) that hisinnovative concept is feasible & functional. He gave a seminar at the University of Geneva, Switzerland that was attended by several scientists from CERN [48]. Anonymous reviewers prevented Crosetto from presenting his paper, submitted to the 2002 IEEE-NSSMIC conference, giving the following explanation: “the number of submissions exceeded the time allocated for the scientific sessions, and we were unable to accept all papers”. General Chair, Joel Karp confirmed without providing scientific arguments why other papers with less scientific merit were accepted [28]. Crosetto's paper was submitted on time. Karp's answer gives credence to a selection process based on a lottery. On Nov. 6, 2002, a meeting was held between Crosetto and the President of Siemens Nuclear Medicine and the Siemens Director of PET, and later with Siemens’ leaders in conference calls. They stated that the efficiency of their PET was not limited by electronics [50]. The 3D-CBS passed a one-day public (via web), international scientific review, and three papers were accepted at the 2003 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference [51].

6

1999 2001 2003

Qualified reviewers were in favor of publishing Crosetto’s 8-page TNS article [43]. Crosetto was able to clarify Senior IEEE scientist, Les Rogers’s misconception regarding to his invention, starting from Les Rogers’s view point. Only after Les Rogers expressed his view point and Crosetto showed the difference between his invention and Les Rogers viewpoint, progress was made in understanding Crosetto’s innovations. This is a further demonstration that Crosetto’s invention was “Beyond Imagination of Future Science.” After 13 years no one could invalidate Crosetto’s scientific work published in his book in the year 2000, and in articles and simulations presented at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Lyon (France). On the contrary, his work has been cited by other authors, and recognized as being the first “True Total-Body PET”. Students, teachers, cancer patients and laymen have asked Crosetto to present his innovations to experts in the field and to decision makers. They are still waiting for a report explaining why they do not want the more efficient, 3DCBS device which could save many lives through effective, early cancer detection at a lower examination cost. DeRenzo’s statement and claim was demonstrated to be incorrect by several authors who published articles after the year 2000 showing that better electronics do infact improve significantly PET efficiency. The list include Siemens who in 2007 improved efficiency by 70% [27]. Crosetto provided the first proof of concept in hardware. Results were displayed on LED, execution timing of the algorithm on the oscilloscope [49].

2001

Crosetto provided solid scientific arguments of the validity of his innovation to the IEEE-NSS-MIC General Chairman, Joel Karp, who could neither refute nor invalidate its merit in several email exchange with Crosetto [29]. However, no scientific arguments were provided for the rejection. Reviewers should take responsibility for their actions, publicly, in the best interest of the cancer patients.

2002

Five years later, they had to recant their statement after their own results, published on Siemens’ website and shown a graph, stating that ultra-fast electronics improved efficiency by 70% [27]. Even so, Crosetto’s 2000 book [11] and articles describe how to improve it by over 40,000% to achieve early cancer detection. Crosetto provided the proof in modular hardware that a 3D-Flow system of any dimension for HEP experiments or for a 3D-CBS device targeted to early

2007

2000 TO

2013

2000 TO

2007

2001

2003

Crosetto also presented his innovations at the ICATPP conference and published an article in the World Scientific Journal [52]. The Chairman of the ICATPP conference wrote a press release to the media announcing Crosetto’s invention. Crosetto gave several seminars in Italy and in the U.S. Several newspapers in Italy and in the U.S. wrote articles about Crosetto’s invention (“La Stampa”, “La Repubblica”, “Libero”, “La Guida”, “Corriere di Savigliano”, “Corriere di Saluzzo”, “Il Saviglianese”, “Il Provinciale”, “Il Corriere del Monviso”, “Saluzzo Oggi”, “Il Medico di Famiglia”, “The Dallas Morning News”, “Focus Daily News”, “Today”, etc.).

2004

A Health Committee of the Italian Government, “Consiglio Superiore di Sanità” (CSS), evaluated the 3DCBS innovative technology and rejected it based on its target to screen for early cancer detection to save lives. The reason that Franco Garibaldi and other reviewers gave was that PET screening is not yet approved in Italy. However, the 3D-CBS is a different device, over 400 times more efficient than the current PET, thus the motivation of the rejection is inconsistent. A more surprising statement was that regardless of the feasibility of the 3D-CBS project, the committee would reject any project that would increase PET sensitivity because, in their opinion, it would reduce specificity. This is an unacceptable unscientific statement against progress to serve the interests of taxpayers who should receive benefits from inventions. Many statements in the committee’s report were inconsistent with reality, or not based on scientific grounds. In fact, calculations and experimental results from other scientists published later in articles proved them incorrect. In the documents sent to the Health Committee at the Italian Minister of Health 11/29/2004, 5/9/2005, and 7/1/2005, Crosetto respectfully pointed out to the committe inconsistent statements they had made asking them if his answers were satisfactory. He never received a reply, and four years later when Crosetto went to the office of the Minister of Health in Rome, he discovered that his answers to the committee’s concerns were removed (although they had a protocol number) from the official file containing all documents related to the review of the 3D-CBS project by the ISS (Istituto Superiore di Sanità).

2005

Crosetto published a new book on "How to Win Cancer" [55]. The 360 page book, although addressed to the general public explaining the need to improve effectiveness in early cancer detection, it also has technical details on how to actually improve it and how the 3D-CBS compares to current technologies. He also presented his innovations at a scientific conference and published an article in the World Scientific Journal [56]. Articles were also published in newspapers, inclusing

cancer detection is feasible and functional [1]. The Italian Minister of Health, Hon. Girolamo Sirchia received Crosetto and the mayor of Crosetto’s home town in Italy. The newspaper “La Stampa” reported in an article that the Italian Minister of Health, had assigned one million euro to Crosetto’s project “as a contribution to advancing in the project during its pre-industrialized phase”. Correspondence between the Italian Minister of Health and the president of the Province of Cuneo, Hon. Raffaele Costa, who strongly supported Crosetto’s effort to improve early cancer detection to save lives, confirmed the published news. A letter from Hon. Costa also mentions Hon. Sirchia agreement “to build a prototype of the 3D-CBS to test first on phantoms and then on patients.” [53]. However, Crosetto never received any money from the million Euros allocated for the development of the 3D-CBS project. The documentation provided and presented by Crosetto on 11/17/2004 [54] to the CSS, clearly demonstrates that the 3D-CBS is hundreds of times more efficient than the current PET, with a safe radiation level of less than 1 mSv. Garibaldi and other reviewers from the CSS are responsible for preventing the contruction of more efficient 3D-CBS devices that could have already saved many lives. They did not accept the dialogue that would alleviate their doubts in regard to improving PET efficiency to enable effective early detection that would save lives. The disappearance of one million Euros, the disappearence of protocolled documents with Crosetto’s answers to the committee from the file relative to the review of the 3D-CBS project at the office of the Minister of Health, the rejection of Crosetto’s project based on the committee’s statements that were later proven by calculations and experimental results from other scientists to be incorrect, calls for an investigation. This is a serious matter that has delayed the construction of the 3D-CBS project, marked for many years as a rejection by a Government agency that has the mission to work toward the best interest of the citizens. Instead, many people continue to die needlesly because of the refusal of scientists who are paid with taxpayer money to eliminate inconsistencies through an open public dialogue. The inconsistencies could have been eliminated in 2004 when Crosetto replied to the committee members, or when he made himself available for a dialogue in 2004. However, during this 2013 conference, Garibaldi was sitting next to Crosetto at the PC2 talks on Oct. 28, 2013, and when Crosetto offered to address and resolve the inconsistencies in a dialogue that would benefit cancer patients, Garibaldi refused. Crosetto would be glad to see if Garibaldi used the money to significantly reduce cancer deaths and cost. However, because no one could demonstrate the ability to achieve such results on a sample population, it isimperative to implement the dialogue that would eliminate the inconsistencies. Cancer patients and laymen asked Crosetto after participating in his seminars (which most have been video-recorded) to present his innovations to experts in the field as well as decision makers. They would like to receive a report from Crosetto with an explanation why these people do not want the more efficient 3D-CBS device which could save many lives through an effective, early cancer detection at a lower examination cost.

7

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

“The Dallas Morning News.” A delegation from Crosetto Foundation goes to the Medical Imaging Press Release from NIH Director Elias Zerhouni on January 31, 2006. Crosetto met the NIH Director, provided him a letter [57] and the documentation relative the 3D-CBS. Zerhouni in the video [58] promised a response. To date, no response was received. A delegation from the Italian organization, ABO Project, their CEO, Massimo Codato, and the Director of Research, Luca Nardini went to Dallas, Texas, for a four day review consisting of 17 hours of meetings and inspection visits to the sites of the labs where the basic components for the proof of concept for the construction of the 3D-CBS device were built and tested. Anonymous reviewers prevented Crosetto from presenting his five papers submitted to the 2007 IEEENSS-MIC. The MIC Chairman could not provide the reasons for the rejection, nor establish a dialogue with the reviewers. Crosetto presented his inventions at another conference and his 15-page article was accepted for publication in the World Scientific Journal [60]. He also published another book: “Health Comes First” with Dr. Vigna [61]. This book is addressed to doctors and the general public and a free copy was sent to more than 2,000 physicians of the Cuneo Province in Italy. The book is structured with answers to sixty common questions. Crosetto was invited by the President of the Province of Cuneo to give a seminar organized by the Province. He also gave several seminars to the general public in Italy and in Canada. Most of Crosetto’s seminars have been video-recorded. Articles appeared on Italian newspapers (“La Stampa”, “La Fedeltà”, “La Guida”, “Cuneo Sette”, “Il Ticino”, etc.) and Canadian newspapers (“Corriere Canadese”), Radio and TV. Crosetto was invited to give a seminar to the World Laboratory, before world experts and Nobel Prize Laureates in Erice at the “Seminars on Planetary Emergencies”. He explained his inventions at an international, public scientific review of the 3D-CBS technology that was held at the Order of Physicians in Rome, Italy. He gave seminars at four major cancer hospitals in Italy (Istituto Tumori in Milan, CRO in Aviano, S. Maria in Reggio Emilia, Regina Elena in Rome), at a scientific conference in Florence and at CERN that was broadcast worldwide via the EVO webmeeting. He had meetings at CERN with the Director General and with leaders of the trigger of the major LHC experiments. Crosetto gave several seminars across Italy (Cosenza, Falconara, Brancaleone, Pesaro, Fossano, Prato, etc. with articles published in newspapers: “La Fedeltà”, “La Bisalta”, “Pistoia La Nazione”, etc.) and in Toronto, Canada with articles published in the newspaper “Lo Specchio”. His seminars were organized by public administrators of regions, provinces, and cities, and from groups of concerned citizens, churches, clubs, etc.

8

As a result of the visit by ABO Project's CEO, Massimo Codato and Director of Research Luca Nardini, Crosetto Foundation received a questionaire compiled and signed by them that validates the 3D-CBS technology as feasible and valuable [59].

2006

The following year, the 2008 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD General Chairman, Uwe Bratzler, encouraged Crosetto to resubmit the papers, promising to provide an explanation if they were rejected. When they were rejected, Bratzler was unsuccessful [31] in his attempts to secure an explanation from the reviewers. He also tried unsuccessfully to help create a public forum on the subject with influential people that he knew in the field. Their refusal to discuss publicly what is in the best interest of cancer patients is damaging to them and taxpayers. At the public, video-recorded [62] ConferenceDialogue which was organized by Hon. Raffaele Costa, President of the Cuneo Province, no one could refute Crosetto’s claims during his seminar and round table discussion with experts in the field. During subsequent seminars given by Crosetto to the general public, cancer patients and laymen continue to ask him to present his innovations to experts in the field and report back to them why they do not want the more efficient 3D-CBS device which coud save many lives through an effective early cancer detection at a lower cost. No one could invalidate Crosetto’s work and claims to achieve a safe effective early cancer detection that could save many lives. Crosetto’s seminar was well received at the “Seminars on Planetary Emergencies” in Erice. His presentation and Q&A was video-recorded [63], and his article was published in the World Scientific Book with all other presentations [64]. He passed the international, public (also via web with simultaneous translation in English, as well as videorecorded [65]) scientific review held at the Order of Physicians in Rome [66]. The review panel included a member of the Italian Consiglio Superiore di Sanità (CSS) that rejected Crosetto’s project four years before and a physician, a physicist, and a business executive from Canada, a business executive from United States, an anatomy-pathologist and other experts in the field from Italy. They compiled a questionnaire which certifies that Crosetto passed the international scientific review. Crosetto’s innovations and 3D-CBS project were enthusiastically praised by the major Italian hospitals were he gave his seminars that were also video-recorded [67]. On August 27, 2008, at CERN the Director General, Robert Aymar, promised a meeting with the experts in Trigger but this never took place. Crosetto’s seminar was presented worldwide from the CMS conference room via EVO web-meeting and was video-recorded [68]. Comments by Joao Varela, Nick Ellis, Wesley Smith,

2008

2008

2009

2010

2011

Sergio Cittolin, and Hans Muller are also available. Wesley Smith, responsible for the CMS trigger, recanted [34] many objections he had made in 1992 that prevented Crosetto’s funding. The clarification about CPRIT came in 2012 when newspapers, magazines and television made public how the $3 billion were used [73]. As a result of all seminars given by Crosetto, no one could provide a reference to a project with higher potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. This includes Crosetto’s seminar and Q&A at BNL that were also video-recorded [74]. As time passed, benefits from Crosetto’s inventions were acknowledged and little by little implemented. However, problems remain that don’t allow the full implementation of all his innovations that would have already significantly reduced cancer deaths and cost. What can overcome all these problems is a DIALOGUE where solid scientific evidence can emerge, where everyone can share (or experimental results can convince those who do not agree). A good example was the seminar and a Q&A session that Crosetto gave in September 2009 at BNL and the 42-page dialogue published in the Italian Journal, “Notiziario di Medicina Nucleare ed Imaging Molecolare” in May 2009 [75]. During the exibitions and Crosetto’s seminars to the general public, cancer patients and laymen continue to ask him to present his innovations to experts and decision makers in the field and report back to them why they do not want the more efficient 3D-CBS device, which could save many lives through an effective, early cancer detection at a lower examination cost. Crosetto’s work (article [76] and poster [77]) had a special recognition with the work of the Italian Astronaut Paolo Nespoli and received mention in newspapers [78] in five continents. The article was originated by the President of the Conference, Vincenzo Arcobelli who described the event and introduced the special guest from Italy, Hon. Elena Centemero, member of the VII Commission for Culture and Instruction of the Italian House of Representatives.

Crosetto was strongly encouraged by the CEO of CPRIT (Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas) that is assigning $3 billion in cancer grants, to submit a grant application. He submitted it [69], [70], however, his proposal was not read by the reviewers. Crosetto gave a seminar at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) before scientists from the departments of Physics, Medicine and Molecular Imaging, which included Joanna Fowler, who had just been awarded the National Medal of Science. No one could invalidate Crosetto’s claims of higher efficiency and lower cost of his 3D-CBS technology. Likewise, the open, public (via web) workshop on the 3D-CBS project held at the IRCCS Hospital of Pavia found Crosetto’s invention valuable and could neither invalidate his work nor refute his claims. Crosetto’s seminars given the previous year created a DIALOGUE between Crosetto and leaders in Medical Imaging in Italy: Pedroli G., Salvo, D., Borasi, G. and Fioroni, F., reported in a 42-page publication on “Notiziario di Medicina Nucleare ed Imaging Molecolare” in May of 2009. A didactic exibition of posters describing Crosetto’s innovations with applications in particle physics (including some original posters presented at the major international scientific review at FERMILab in 1993) and in medical imaging were displayed in the “Sala Salomé” of the Bank of Italy in downtown Padova and for a week at the main building of the University of Pavia, Italy. Crosetto presented part of the poster exhibition at the ICATPP conference, and presented a paper that was published in the World Scientific Journal [71]. In December, Crosetto presented a poster and an article at the 5th “Conference of the Contribution of Italian Researchers in the World”. Crosetto explained his innovative concepts with the analogy of solving a problem taking 30 seconds that is described in envelopes arriving every 6 seconds to high school students in S. Antonio, TX. With the help of David Tedesco, a video was made describing Crosetto’s innovative concept to laymen [72]. Crosetto presented two articles at the “Physics for Health” workshop held at CERN on Feb. 2-4, 2010. One article [79] on the 3D-CBS and the other had 15 coauthors and contained over 1,000 cosigners of an online petition on the “need for a paradigm change in oncology research” [80]. A delegation of the Crosetto Foundation from the U.S. and a physician from Italy met with CERN’s Director General and the Scientific Director and hand delivered over 7,000 signatures on a petition requesting a public open scientific review of Crosetto's innovations for particle detection. They asked the CERN Scientific Director for a list of the scientific merits supporting the assignment by his committee of the first prize to the Axial-PET project. Crosetto and an associate of the Crosetto Foundation met Cary Adams, CEO of UICC (Union for International Cancer Control) in Geneva to discuss a proposal [81] to achieve the maximum reduction in cancer deaths and cost as soon as possible. Crosetto's 3D-CBS technology participated in the Leonardo da Vinci International Competition held at the

9

2009

Two articles were presented at the “Physics for Health” held at CERN on Feb. 2-4, 2010. The abstract was translated into ten languages and a copy of the entire article was distributed to the participants. There were no objections to Crosetto's claims and they were not invalidated. Seven thousand signatures of a petition and a letter [82] by Dr. Danilo Verra were hand delivered to CERN’s Director General, who promised a response. No response has been received to date. No scientific reasons were provided supporting the assignment of first prize to the Axial-PET project funded by CERN, awarded by the committee that included CERN’s Scientific Director among its members [14]. In October, a workshop on the 3D-CBS was held at the university of Pavia which confirmed its advantages compared to other approaches. In November, Crosetto and Frank Guy presented a poster at the Dallas Regional Chamber: “Cancer Prevention & Commercialization”.

2010

Crosetto’s 3D-CBS technology won the Leonardo da Vinci Prize for the most efficient solution in particle

2011

University of Pavia, Italy, where all projects were reviewed during a live public scrutiny via web [83]. Cancer patient Lillo Mulone plead to the CERN Scientific Director to meet Crosetto to check if his 3DCBS project was valuable. He was successful in obtaining the meeting. Crosetto wrote the book: “The Future is in Our Hands. EVERY YEAR: 10 Million Preventable Deaths and Trillions of Dollars LOST” [84] and gave several seminars. On October 2nd, Crosetto answered (sending a copy of his letter [85] to the CERN Director General, the BBC and other media involved) to the appeal for help made by the Spokesman of CERN-OPERA experiment, Antonio Ereditato at the BBC to help them interpret what they called “crazy results” of their measurements showing neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light. Simply, their million dollar instrument had conceptual flaws and therefore could not provide accurate measurements of the neutrinos’ speed. In November, Crosetto also provided the references to the hardware for particle detection in HEP and medical imaging for early cancer detection that he designed, built and tested in 2003 [86], which shows to be hundreds of times more accurate than what was claimed in the October, 2011 CERN Bulletin by the OPERA collaboration about their electronics identified as having “outstanding accuracy” built five years later in 2008.

2012

detection for early cancer diagnosis after five hours of live public (also via web with simultaneous translation in English) scrutiny of all projects [87] from the University of Pavia, Italy. A final report of the review describes the event and reviewers’ statements [88]. Crosetto went to CERN on 1/12/2011 with Dr. Vigna to meet CERN Scientific Director, S. Bertolucci. Bertolucci did not find any flaws in Crosetto’s project/inventions. He stated that they had powerful trigger systems at CERN. His statement was invalidated by several scientists at this conference who stated that the triggers of level-0 (or level-1) of major experiments needed to be redesigned and rebuilt [89]. CERN Scientific Director made several other statements inconsistent with the final objective that needed to be reached in providing the most cost-effective tool to discover new particles and to reduce cancer deaths through an effective early cancer detection. His claim was that CERN’s objective is to use the most advanced technology in all areas, while Crosetto’s approach is to identify ideas and innovations that optimize the synergy among different components that will provide the most cost-effective results without necessary using the most advanced and expensive technology. Technically speaking Crosetto’s goal is to provide an instrument that in HEP and medical imaging “accurately captures as many particles as possible satisfying the characteristics of the desired particle at the lowest cost per valid particle captured.” Bertolucci did not answer Crosetto’s and Vigna's letters offering to address these discrepancies in detail in a public forum with his experts in particle detection. Had he and other CERN leaders in the previous year done so, it would not have been necessary to redesigning the trigger after experiments proved their claims did not work. More importantly many additional people would not die needlessly because the more efficient 3D-CBS project based on the same principles is neither supported nor funded. Crosetto detailed his claims and wrote a report about the meeting to Lillo Mulone. Mulone informed organizations who have people’s trust regarding the discussion between Crosetto and CERN’s Scientific Director [90]. Several participants showed interest in Crosetto’s presentation “The Future is in Our Hands: How to Reduce Millions of Preventable Deaths and Trillions of Dollars LOST Every Year.” A meeting among these people was held at 8:00 am on August 30. Crosetto also met one of the Scientific Directors of the WCC Congress, Eduardo Franco, who did not agree with Crosetto’s initiative to make cancer researchers more accountable by asking them to estimate their results in cancer death reduction they expect to attain if their research would receive funding. He argued that this criterion would disenfranchise research. Franco stated that the process to identify projects with the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost should not rely upon the selfresponsibility of researchers to support their claims of achieving that goal with scientific arguments, but rely on the power given to "experts on health economics" from government agencies who understand if the technology is valuable [95]. However, over half of a century of using this methodology has not provided results in cancer death and cost reduction, while technology like Crosetto’s 3DCBS, proven to be more efficient to save lives has not

Crosetto's paper and slides were accepted at the World Cancer Congress in Montreal, Canada, August 27-30, 2012, organized by UICC. The title of the presentation was, “The Future is in Our Hands: How to Reduce Millions of Preventable Deaths and Trillions of Dollars LOST Every Year” [91]. Crosetto met with several leaders in the field (scientific directors of the event, the director of research of the American Cancer Society, etc.) and asked them the questions he received from layman during his seminars. Crosetto and his collaborators of the Crosetto Foundation from Italy distributed a free copy of his book “The Future is in Our Hands. EVERY YEAR: 10 Million Preventable Deaths and Trillions of Dollars LOST” to the participants at the conference, ICTR-PHE (International Conference on Translational Research in Radio-Oncology and Physics for Health in Europe) [92] and met [93] one-on-one with the CERN Director General on February 28, 2012, handing him references to the schematics of his electronics built in 2003, hundreds of times more accurate than the electronics built in 2008 by OPERA's experiment and advertized in the October issue of the CERN Bulletin as having “outstanding

10

2012

2013

accuracy.” On March 30, 2012, both leaders of the OPERA experiment, A. Ereditato and D. Autiero resigned. In the spring of 2012, from Dallas, Texas, Crosetto coordinated a public event in Cumiana, Italy, where his 2009 poster exhibition which was presented in Padova and Pavia was displayed in down-town Cumiana and the former high-school Principal, Eng. Giovanni Mastropaolo, organized a demonstration of Crosetto’s innovative concept with the analogy of bottling water in a square with public participation [94]. In the fall, Crosetto attended the Cumiana fair for two days, providing several seminars about his technology for a low cost, effective, early cancer detection to small groups gathered at the City Council Chambers. When Mastropaolo or Crosetto received the attention of laymen it was never a problem for them to understand the advantages of his invention. This would also be the case if decision makers would pay attention to Crosetto’s innovative concept and/or express their doubts so that he could explain or together take note of inconsistencies and resolve them. Crosetto gave several other seminars in different locations and to different groups in Italy. Among these seminars was one given with other speakers on October 17, at the Catholic Center for Bioethics in Turin, Italy to an audience of about 100 people in the field of Health Care (several physicians, directors of departments in hospitals, etc., attended). Crosetto gave seminars having the title, “THE FUTURE IS IN OUR HANDS: How to Reduce Millions of Cancer deaths and Trillions of Dollars Lost Every Year” to local groups (Dallas Goethe Center [98] and at the DeSoto City Council Chambers that was broadcasted on the local TV channels [99]) in Dallas and to different groups in the world in English [100], Italian [101] and French [102] through several Google Hangouts (France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, United States, South Africa and Brazil). The Crosetto Foundation made attempts to use crowd-funding websites to raise funds; however, after their first attempt in May, their four websites were attacked with malware viruses. Upon their second attempt, the URL, used as a link to the crowd-funding website, had been reported to the "Razor SpamAssassin" and it took many days to resolve the issue [103]. These attacks impeded the Crosetto Foundation’s contact with recipients of its mailing list and prevented them from receiving information in their best interest, and from cooperating with the Foundation to eliminate inconsistencies that would allow reducing cancer deaths and cost. Crosetto then submitted three abstracts to the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD and only one was accepted. Also, this year as it occurred in 2002, 2004, 2007, and 2008, the Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging conferences have prevented Crosetto from presenting his contribution without providing scientific argument supporting their rejection. Following the advice of Senior Scientist, Aaron Brill who found the theme of the Conference in Singapore to be in agreement with Crosetto’s goals, Crosetto submitted one page article [104] and poster [105] to the 2013 IEEE Life Sciences Grand Challenges Conference, Dec. 2-3, in Singapore.

been understood by health economists. Crosetto then met the Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society, Otis Brawley, repeating the question he receives during his seminars to ask for funding from the ACS. Brawley politely took the book “The Future is in Our Hands…” that Crosetto offered him and he promised to read it; however, he made it clear to Crosetto that even if it is the most wonderful project, the ACS could not consider it for funding because the ACS had an agreement with NCI to fund only young investigators and because Crosetto was 61 years of age they could in no way provide him funding [96]. The audience was very interested in asking questions and continuing the debate in a round table among the speakers on October 17 at the Catholic Center for Bioethics in Turin [97]. No one could deny the discrepancy between the high cancer cost and meager results. Crosetto’s message was that we should all reflect on the statements from world leaders, governments and media that 50% of people dying prematurely from cancer we could have been saved with early cancer detection. Who does not want the dialogue in identifying which technology is improving early cancer detection? People are expecting to continue this dialogue and trust Giorgio Palestro, the former Dean of the faculty of Medicine of Turin University and among the organizers of the event to resume the round table discussion that was abruptly interrupted on October 17, 2012. The participation and comments at Crosetto’s seminars were very positive [106]. The general public, cancer patients and laymen asked Crosetto to present his innovations to experts in the field and decision makers. They would like to receive back a report from Crosetto as to why they do not want the more efficient 3D-CBS device that could save many lives through effective, early cancer detection at a lower examination cost. The group “One hand for…” five questions [107] in an Italian newspaper published that Crosetto asked the General Chairman of the Conference and its participants. Crosetto summarized the questions during the plenary meeting on Monday, October 28, 2013, and delivered a printed copy to the leaders of the conference. His poster [108] garnered several positive comments and raised considerable attention from people who asked for more explanation. Crosetto was offered help from the current Deputy Chairman of the Medical Imaging Conference, Craig Levin, in organizing a workshop at the 2014 IEEENSS-MIC-RTSD Conference on his theme to identify projects with the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost [109]. He also found several people agreeing to continue the e-mail exchange among experts in the field to discuss the content of the Wikipedia page of PET [110]. Crosetto is awaiting answers from the 2013 IEEENSS-MIC-RTSD General Chairman regarding the five questions so he can report them to those who have asked him these questions during his seminars, and to the 7,000+ people who signed the petition and the group “One hand for…” who made them public in an article.[111]

11

2013

NEXT

A remedy to continue actions that are damaging society is the DIALOGUE that makes the scientific truth for the benefit of mankind prevail. What is important is to eliminate the inconsistencies that are damaging society. For example, to know where the one million euros assigned by the Italian Minister of Health “as a contribution to advancing in the project [3D-CBS] during its pre-industrialized phase” went. To request reviewers to address their inconsistent rejection claims rather than making disappear from the file the applicant’s proofs of their inconsistent statement and discovering after several years that committee’s statements were proven by calculation and experimental results from other scientists to be incorrect. Did the millions of euros of grants assigned to Garibaldi and other researchers provide greater benefits in reducing cancer deaths and cost than it would have provided in the development of the 3D-CBS? Clearly, Wesley Smith recanted his statement that programmability at the level-0 (or level-1) trigger was not necessary and admitted several other errors. At this point, Smith and those who funded him should think about resigning or should ask Crosetto and anyone else who has proved in the past to be correct for their help to eliminate inconsistencies before deciding on a project in order to avoid making future errors. Eduardo Franco, who claims that advances in cancer deaths and cost reduction should be left to health economists instead of scientists, even those inventors who are competent in their job and, can estimate the reduction in cancer deaths and cost they expect to achieve on a sample population, should be open to a public dialogue where he can express his idea and have data and facts to support that idea. The CERN Scientific Director claim during our meeting on 1/12/2011 that a) the cost of components used for HEP experiments and PET medical imaging devices is not important, b) CERN development of building blocks to be used in PET or their projects to build a PET prototype should not meet the needs of the patient but just use the fasted and most advanced technology, c) in his opinion there exist over 50 processors offering better flexibility at a lower cost with respect to the 3D-Flow system. He stated to have built the trigger four years ago using those processors, etc., need to be discussed and inconsistencies identified before results prove him wrong and he being refuted by his own people who stated that major experiments at CERN need to be redesigned as the trigger did not have adequate flexibility and performance in identifying new particles. His claim of using the most expensive components in building CERN-Axial-PET proved to be less efficient and more costly than current PET. During the past 20 years Crosetto received over 50 letters of appreciation for his inventions and his work from top experts in the field. Just to mention a few of them within about a five years apart: On 2/4/94, John People, Director of the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), (former Director of Fermi National Laboratory) writes: “…Moreover, your invention, if commercialized with private industry, will serve to create jobs in the US economy and abroad. I salute you and encourage you to continue your innovative activity to the benefit of mankind.” [112]. On 2/27/95, Joel Butler, Head,

Did we have a solution to eliminate the discrepancy of the high cost of High Energy Physics experiments and little flexibility in tuning the billion dollar instrument to find the new particle before all this money was spent? Did we have a solution to eliminate the much greater discrepancy of the high cancer cost and meager results in cancer deaths reduction during the past 50 years before $30+ trillion were spent and more than 200 million lives were lost? Did we have a solution for an effective early cancer detection during the announcement for the past 67 years of the statement made by reputable sources from government agencies, cancer organizations, research centers, hospitals, physicians, etc., that early detection would have saved cancer deaths by 50%? Who then, is responsible for approving the million dollars for the OPERA experiment as an instrument with conceptual flaws for measuring neutrinos speed instead of limiting its task to detecting tau neutrinos from muon neutrinos oscillations? Who is responsible for building the billion dollar HEP experiments knowing these are instruments with inadequate flexibility in finding new particles when Crosetto made available in 1992, his 3D-Flow system that offers at a lower cost per valid signal captured, full programmability at the raw-data input at level-0 (or level1) trigger? More importantly, because Crosetto’s invention in detecting particles more efficiently at a lower cost enables a cost-effective early cancer detection, who then, is responsible for the needless deaths of many people who could have been saved with a low cost screening examination with the 3D-CBS device, effective to detect cancer at an early curable stage? Crosetto’s goal is to serve cancer patients and the interest of taxpayers to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity prevail. The goal is not to place scientists and/or decision makers in a difficult position, it should be everyone's goals to eliminate the inconsistencies that are damaging society. Scientists should not play a game of who is getting and spending taxpayers’ money but who is identifying and solving inconsistencies. Anyone who holds a position of responsibility places themselves in a controversial position before humanity when they make inconsistent statements or when they ignore a solution to a problem that is already available. More importantly, we will continue to kill over 3 million people per year knowing that early cancer detection would have saved 50% of cancer deaths, but decision makers continue to fund projects more costly and less efficient that cannot achieve this goal, while the 3D-CBS that could have demonstrated on a sample population years ago that it can achieve this goal, goes unfunded. It is the responsibility of all media, cultural groups, concerned citizens who care about removing inconsistencies through the dialogue to disseminate this article in order to apply pressure on those who should take responsibility for the killing of over 3 million people per year who could have been saved.

12

NEXT

Computing Division at Fermi National Laboratory, writes about Crosetto’s invention: “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 3DFlow 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, […] 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” [113]. On 11/23/00, Pier Giorgio Innocenti, CERN Division Leader of Electronics and Computing in Physics (ECP) after reading Crosetto’s book and inviting him to give seminars at CERN write: “…In short, the proposed system will drastically reduce the radiation dose to the patient, shorten the scanning time and produce an image of improved resolution. The design principles of the proposed 3D-Flow system are sound and rest on Crosetto’s long experience in electronics design and digital signal processing. My perception of the proposal is very positive and I hope that the ideas will materialize in an instrument which is badly needed” [114]. On 6/26/2005, Paul Bartholdi, Senior scientist, expert in photons at the Observatory of Geneva, Switzerland, writes to the President of the Province of Cuneo, Italy, former Minister of Health in Italy: “…We had learned long ago how he could build very powerful tools using digital electronics in extremely clever ways that most of us had never foreseen. […] sometimes concerning clever uses he makes of the latest electronic components, sometimes about medical or economical aspects of his 3D-CBS. […] In the past Cosetto’s proposals were rejected by reviewers without them providing any good scientific argument against his claims. May I suggest that you organize a public review of his innovations, open to anyone seriously interested to fight cancer at an early stage. Doubts, concerns or disagreements should be resolved on scientific grounds or with specific small experiments.” [115]. On 7/12/2010, Domenico Scannicchio, Medical Physics Director at the University of Pavia, Italy, writes to the Dean of the University: “…The 3D-CBS mazimizes the utilization of radiation by capturing all possible signals from tumor marker with respect to existing solutions at the lowest cost per signal captured while maintaining image resolution. This is thanks to the innovations in the field of electronics by Dario Crosetto and those he extended later to other fields such as: detector assembly, capability to execute complex algorithms in real-time, and other innovations as described in the attached documents […] to conclude, I find that this proposal is scientifically sound and it is my professional opinion that the 3D-CBS technology should be developed…” [116].

13

particles as possible (including 511 keV pairs of photons tagging tumor markers) satisfying a specific, although complex, real-time algorithm, at the lowest cost per valid particle found, is illustrated in Fig 1.

III. …IN THE DISCOVERY OF NEW PARTICLES AND REDUCING THE COST OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS EXPERIMENTS (NSS)… The applications of my inventions to the NSS (Nuclear Science Symposium) allows the extraction of valuable information from data (radiation) arriving from thousands of channels at hundreds of millions of frames per second. It provides an unprecedented powerful tool to find new particles in HEP experiments, beyond the imagination of experimenters, as recognized by the major international review panel at FERMILab in 1993. In the following paragraphs I will describe the basic concepts of the 3D-Flow, providing the references to more detailed material and giving examples of what is advantageous and still has not been understood and/or implemented. To accurately identify and measure particle characteristics of total energy, arrival time, “x”, “y”, “z” coordinates, momentum, relating values measured in one detector element with values in neighboring detector elements, also from different sub-detectors and efficiently rejecting noise, it is necessary to have the capability to execute complex real-time algorithms on sets of data arriving every 25 nanoseconds (or at an even faster rate) for a time period longer than the interval between two consecutive input data sets, without missing any data. My inventions can achieve this goal in a programmable form, directly on raw input data received from the detector, allowing an exchange of data with neighboring detector elements, in order to acquire all data related to a particle (see Fig. 3). My invention is not merely a 3D-Flow parallelprocessing architecture, it is the synergy of several of my inventions in different areas of HEP experiments: detector assembly and segmentation, coupling of signals from the detector to the electronics, acquiring and processing signals within an angle seen from the interaction view point, real-time algorithms, etc. It is a very powerful tool that:

Fig. 1. Illustration of the 3D-Flow parallel-processing architecture.

The concept has been proven by building and testing two modular electronic boards, as shown in Fig. 2. The test of the communication between two modular boards proves that a system for HEP of any dimension of the detector and channels can be built, and this applies to PET Medical Imaging applications as well, with all advantages listed above.

a) provides flexibility by allowing the real-time particle detection algorithm to be changed. b) allows the algorithm to be tuned after the first data taking. c) provides the possibility to execute an efficient algorithm when luminosity is increased, without the need to redesign the hardware. In fact, the high threshold required by the hardware of current experiments cannot distinguish pileup events and noise, rejecting good events together with noise, whereas the programmability of the 3D-Flow allows different pile-up subtraction algorithms to be directly implemented on raw data, based on an estimate of the mean energy density.

Fig. 2. Modular board to build a 3D-Flow parallel-Processing system of any dimensions for High Energy Physics applications in finding new particles and in Medical Imaging in reducing cancer deaths and costs

During the recent presentation at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MICRTSD conference no one could deny the advantages of FULL programmability at the level of raw data input, exactly what my inventions provide. I read in the May 2013 issue of the CERN COURIER (after the official announcement of the discovery of the Higgs boson on July 4, 2012) that “The collaborations [CMS and Atlas] finds the new particle is looking more and more like the Higgs boson. However, it remains an open question whether this is the Higgs boson of the Standard Model of particle physics…” Knowing that only a few (one hundred?) Higgs boson candidates were found, I then respectfully asked scientists responsible for the trigger, a few questions about their trigger working principles, and whether my inventions would have provided more accurate measurements. No one could refute it and several facts confirm the advantages of my claims and proofs.

d) can reduce the cost by designing only one box of hardware instead of different hardware for different experiments, in addition to providing physicists a more powerful tool to capture all possible Higgs bosons and other desired particles satisfying a specific real-time algorithm. The feasibility and functionality of the 3D-Flow system architecture to accurately capture and identify as many new 14

Fig. 3. Illustration of how data flow in the 3D-Flow Parallel-Processing Architecture

15

The trigger is the decision box responsible to acquire the first data of a special collision. If this unit does not have the capability to grasp the right data, all further processing and circuits will capture and process non-meaningful data. For example, on February 27, 2012, in a meeting with the CERN Director General, I provided the references to the hardware I designed, built and tested in 2003 [51], which shows hundreds of times better accuracy than what was claimed in the October, 2011 CERN Bulletin by the OPERA collaboration about their electronics identified as having “outstanding accuracy”, built five years later in 2008. On March 30, 2012, both leaders of the OPERA experiment, A. Ereditato and D. Autiero resigned. Regarding the meeting with Wesley Smith on August 27, 2008, mentioned in Chapter II, I asked him which features he implemented in the CMS trigger, though years before at the SSC he had claimed them unnecessary. He listed a few features, such as communication between trigger logic units within an electronic board with no boundaries. However, he admitted some were not implemented, such as, absence of boundaries between boards and no point-to-point connection between the detector and electronics that would provide free programmable segmentation of the detector, etc. Smith could not deny the advantages of those features that my invention could have provided since 1992. The same day, I met Peter Sharp from CMS, who mentioned that at the last moment they had to add tracking information at the first level trigger. He could not deny that my 3D-Flow system, if adopted, would have offered full programmability and an easy inclusion of information from additional detector units, such as tracking, in the trigger decision. At the NSS-N5-4 presentation at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MICRTSD conference, it was stated that the Atlas L1 Trigger be improved to cope with higher rates (slide 17). Slide 16 states that “no change to the detector is needed. Full replacement of front-end and back-end electronics” was needed instead. This was not because of aging radiation limits. The limitation of the current Atlas trigger was admitted. It is clear that the FULL programmability at the level of the raw data input of my inventions would have increased performance and therefore solved the uncertainties mentioned in the issue of the May, 2013 CERN COURIER in identifying the Higgs boson characteristics. It would not have been required to redesign the trigger system for the upgrade, being that the current CERN trigger is not programmable. It can act mainly on threshold, which cannot separate good information from noise, thus by increasing the threshold will reject good events together with noise. The better granularity for Atlas calorimeter described in slides 31-32 and the trigger system architecture described in slide 22, could have been implemented with the 3D-Flow system architecture, providing a much more powerful tool to identify new particles. Likewise, the limitations of the LHCb trigger presented at the same conference could have been avoided if the original design based on the 3D-Flow system architecture and described in LHCb LOI in 2005 as well as in the LHCb Technical Report in 2008, and in the 45-page NIM article, had not been replaced by a lower performance trigger system.

Instead, now the LHCb level-1 trigger needs to be upgraded because it does not have full programmability at the raw data level. When asked, the speaker, A. Puig, admitted that the capability of executing a complex algorithm at the L0-Trigger would have improved the low 50% efficiency of the Hadrons trigger (see slide 6) [89]. IV. …AND IN PROVIDING THE HIGHEST POTENTIAL TO REDUCE PREMATURE CANCER DEATHS AND COST THROUGH AN EFFECTIVE EARLY CANCER DETECTION (MIC) The presentation of my inventions to the MIC (Medical Imaging Conference) shows how the 3D-CBS, a patented technology requiring a low level of radiation at a very low examination cost, could be applied to drastically improve early cancer detection. A. 3D-CBS: An Ultra-Sensitive Total Body PET Screening Device for Saving Many Lives The 3D-CBS is a new PET/CT (Positron Emission Tomography combined with Computed Tomography). The 3D-CBS technology relies on the same nuclear reaction as current PET, however, unlike the 5,000 existing PET devices that can only measure the dimension of the alreadyformed tumors, the 3D-CBS, because of its high efficiency in accurately capturing as many signals as possible from the tumor markers, can detect the very first cancer cells, long before anatomical changes occur. With the very accurate information about biological processes that can be tagged with a radioisotope, the 3D-CBS: a) can replace many tests such as the mammogram, colonoscopy, etc., with an effective single low cost, low radiation, screening examination to detect cancer and other diseases in most organs of the body at an early curable stage. b) provides more accurate information on minimum abnormal biological processes, quantified with a ratio as shown in Fig. 4, not just with colors or gray tones. c) makes it possible to provide a more accurate staging of the disease and the identification of micro-metastasis. d) provides a precise measurement of the cancer activity, inflammations, infections, etc. e) provides the physician with precious information that can explain many anomalies in the patient’s body, not just related to cancer but also to diabetes, Alzheimer’s, heart and vascular diseases, etc. f) has increased sensitivity, which opens the door to the discovery and development of new biomarkers that cannot now be detected with current inefficient PET, thus making their discovery difficult. g) physicians will be able to think beyond the size of the tumor and think how they can use the precious information related to biological processes they receive from the 3D-CBS in their diagnosis and treatment plan. 16

For all these reasons, the 3D-CBS innovative technology has the potential to save many lives and reduce costs.

offer in very high sensitivity, high spatial resolution, low radiation dose and low examination cost. In the other projects some of these features are achieved to the detriment of others. Being able to offer a competitive and realistic solution for screening is not only my dream, but also the dream of Jaemoon Jo, Senior Vice President and Fellow of Samsung. In fact, during his plenary talk at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MICRTSD conference, Jo mentioned that it is one of Samsung’s goal: offering an affordable exam covering all organs of the body in a single test, able to detect all anomalies that might evolve into a severe disease. This medical imaging device should be sensitive, safe, and at a low, affordable examination cost. In technical words these features could be implemented as a Medical Imaging device capable of “accurately capturing as many signals as possible from the tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured”. Exactly the characteristics where the 3D-CBS excels, due to the inventions in particle detection, detector assembly, electronics, real-time algorithms, etc., when compared to other approaches).

Fig. 4 shows on the left the darker spot that should be interpreted by the physician as an abnormal metabolism, compared to the precise information provided by the 3D-CBS on the right. Besides spotting the body area concerned, the 3DCBS quantifies abnormal metabolism, showing the ratio between the metabolism measured and the average consumption of nutrient.

1) Comparison of the 3D-CBS technology with PET based on another “block detector” It is important to note that a PET built using the “block detector” designed by CERN Axial-PET team would be about 20 times more expensive and 30 times less sensitive than the 3D-CBS. A PET built using BNL RatCAP-PET “Block detector”, would be about 30 times more expensive and 50 times less sensitive. A PET built using FERMILab TOF-PET “block detector”, would be 30 times more expensive and 10 times less sensitive than the 3D-CBS. Finally, a PET built with Levin’s “block detector” would be about 500 times more expensive and 30 times less sensitive. What distinguishes the 3D-CBS is that it combines very high sensitivity, high spatial resolution, low radiation dose and low examination cost. Thanks to the patented electronics architecture, the simplified detector assembly, the coupling of detector with the electronics and the real-time algorithms the 3D-CBS can use economical crystals, sensors and electronics, allowing to increase its axial length (FOV) of the detector by ten times with a cost increase of only two times compared to current PET. This would result in huge economical savings while providing a breakthrough lifesaving device. The examination cost would be lower and the amortization of the 3D-CBS quicker, because the patient throughput could easily be over six times faster. Moreover, there would be a savings in the lower radioisotope dosage and in personnel that although the number of patients examined will increase approximately six times, the personnel will not be six fold. It is disheartening that such a solution that was made available 13 years ago has not been funded, but instead is now being copied to build an expensive PET targeted to the development of new drugs.

Fig. 4. Comparison between the information provided by current over 5,000 PET and the quantitative information provided by the 3D-CBS (right on Fig)

Fig. 5 illustrates the anatomical and functional information provided by the 3D-CBS consisting of a PET and a CT section.

Figure 5. The 3D-CBS is a new PET/CT (Positron Emission Tomography combined with Computed Tomography) with much higher sensitivity that enables early cancer detection, requiring administering a low radiation dose to the patient which allows screening at a low examination cost.

The 3D-CBS innovative technology recently won the Leonardo da Vinci competition for the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis. None of the other projects have shown that they would achieve the best cost-effective solution that the 3D-CBS can 17

Fig. 6. The three statements on yellow banners on green on the left summarize the advantages important to the doctor/radiologist compared to current medical imaging devices. Each statement is illustrated in the next column, limitation of current technology is shown next in the red column, and the improvement achievable with the 3D-CBS is illustrated in the green (right) column. See Sections j, k, and l for energy resolution; m, n, and o for spatial resolution; and p, q, and r for sensitivity. The key innovations start from the features in Section r, which enables the innovation in Section I, which in turn enables the innovations in Section l and o. Additional innovations are achieved as a result of the combination of the combination of these.

than the 3D-CBS, for a cost over ten times higher. The reason is the use of 20 mm LYSO crystals with a 70% photon stopping power, while the 3D-CBS uses 25 mm BGO with 93% photon stopping power. In addition the world production of LYSO is limited, while BGO is commercially available to

B. EXPLORER: An Ultra-sensitive Total Body PET scanner for Biomedical Research The EXPLORER Total-Body PET is under many aspects a copy of the 3D-CBS designed 13 years earlier. Yet the EXPLORER sensitivity in a specific organ is about 20% less 18

satisfy a large demand. Due to this design choice, screening a large population with the EXPLORER PET to save lives with early detection is impractical and unachievable. Figure 7 compares the 3D-CBS invention with its 2013 copy, the EXPLORER PET, which receives funding in spite of costing over ten times more and being targeted only to research of new drugs. Because cancer drug development for over a half a century has failed to reduce cancer deaths and has just increased the cost to society, on behalf of the interest of tax-payers, I respectfully ask the authors of the EXPLORER project to allow a fair competition. My objective is saving lives with a very sensitive, safe, low cost 3D-CBS screening aiming at early cancer detection. I have solid scientific arguments to expect that my inventions will match or surpass the features of the EXPLORER in high sensitivity, and spatial resolution. They could also be applied to the development of new drugs, at a much lower cost. I made it clear in my articles and book - distributed to about 200 scientists, including many authors of the EXPLORER project at the 2000 IEEE-NSSMIC-RTSD conference in Lyon - that my plan was supported by scientific arguments, was feasible and beneficial to taxpayers. I expected that many of the authors of the EXPLORER project, who have positions of responsibility, would have supported my project in order to receive taxpayers’ money (grants) to implement it. Instead, I received comments from some of them or from colleagues appointed by them that were incorrect, as proven by facts in the years following the reviews, by several scientists and industries in the field. Instead of investigating and neutralizing those comments that were delaying the implementation of my ideas, some of the authors of the EXPLORER project supported rejections of my abstracts from anonymous reviewers providing no scientific arguments for the rejection.

V. ONE OF THE KEY FEATURES THAT ENABLES MY INVENTION TO GO “BEYOND IMAGINATION OF FUTURE SCIENCE”: FULL PROGRAMMABILITY (DSP) AT THE LEVEL OF THE RAW INPUT DATA FROM THE DETECTOR (RTSD) The applications of my inventions to RTSD (RoomTemperature Semiconductor X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Detectors) provides FULL programmability at the level of the input raw data arriving from the detector with the capability to execute in real-time on this acquired data complex algorithms for a longer time than the time interval of two subsequent data sets and with the capability to exchange data between neighboring electronic (detector) channels. This invention deeply changed the concept of designing a physics experiment, starting from the segmentation of the different sub-detectors which allows the correlation of data in depth, in different layers (within the angle viewed from the interaction point), to the coupling of the data from the detector to the electronics, to correlate data horizontally within the same layer (“x” and “y”). This is an unprecedented tool to experimenters not only in lowering the cost of the experiments, but also in providing a much more powerful tool which enables the discovery of new particles by permitting the execution of different real-time complex algorithms on the raw data before precious information is lost in adding, or applying statistical functions on data received from different detectors. The programmability at the level of raw input data allows the calibration of each electronic channel, subtraction of pedestals, eliminating noise instead of summing it and then applying a threshold that rejects the good information together with the noise.

Figure 8. Illustration of how signals within a view angle from the view of the interaction point are transferred to a 3D-Flow input channel which offers FULL programmability at the raw input data with the capability to exchange information with neighboring channels.

Figure 7. The 3D-CBS invention for an effective, safe, low examination cost for early cancer detection available from the year 2000 (left) that did not receive funding and its copy (EXPLORER left) in 2013, costing over 10 times the 3D-CBS, targeted to research to develop new drugs that receives funding.

19

TABLE II. HOW THE 3D-CBSa COMPARES TO CURRENTb AND FUTUREc PET DEVICES

3D-CBSd 3-D Complete Body Screening

Philips Gemini LXLe

Siemens Biograph TruePointf

GE Discoveryg 710

Future IEEE-MIC - Craig Levinh CERN - Christian Jorami

Targeted to define prognosis of already formed tumors, mostly at an advanced stage

TARGETED TO EARLY CANCER DETECTIONj Very Highl

Very Lowm

Very, Very Low n

Defined as the number of tumor markers captured, divided by those generated

Captures many tumor markers (signals) per second at a low cost per valid signal captured

Captures few tumor markers (signals) per second at a high cost per valid signal for a ~ 16 cm FOV detector

Captures fewer tumor markers per second than Philips Siemens & GE for ~ 16 cm FOV

EXAMINATION DURATIONo for 150 cm Field Of View (FOV)

~4 minutes

EFFICIENCYk

INFORMATION TO PHYSICIAN EFFECTIVENESS FOR EARLY CANCER DETECTION SAFE FOR SCREENING Radiation dose for screening should be less than 1mSv

~ 35 minutes

SURVIVAL PROBABILITY WHOSE INTEREST IS PRIMARILY BEING SERVED?

WHAT SERVES THE PATIENT BEST?

> 40 minutes

Tumor dimensionsq of already-formed tumors when at a more advanced stage, or when already metastasized

Same as for Phil., Siem. & GE, with increasedr spatial resolution to the detriment of efficiency

Yess

Not

Nou

Safe and Efficient

Unsafe and Inefficient

More Unsafe and Inefficient

Yes

No

No

No

No

Safe (e.g. 0.5 mSv using FDG)

Hazardous (e.g. 8-15 mSv using FDG)

Hazardous (e.g. 6-16 mSv using FDG)

Hazardous (e.g. 9-16 mSv using FDG)

More Hazardous for ~ 16 cm FOV detector (e.g. 11-17 mSv using FDG)

Nox Captures only tumor markers within its 16 cm FOV; unable to capture most oblique signals

No Same as for Philips, Siemens and GE for a ~ 16 cm FOV

Low Unable to detect cancer at its earliest stage

Very Low Even less likely to detect cancer at an early stage

PATIENT

PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES

PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES

Is the patient best served by improving EFFICIENCY, measuring at low cost the slightest abnormal metabolism to achieve EFFECTIVE EARLY CANCER DETECTION?

Is the patient best served by measuring the dimensions of tumors at an advanced stage to show the effect of expensive drugsz?

Is the patient best served by measuring the dimensions of tumors at an advanced stage or sensitivity at a high cost to show the effect of expensive drugsz?

NO

NO

Annual $400 3D-CBS screening exam will prolong life for many yearsy at ~ $34 per month

Prolongs life an average of ONLY 4.4 monthsaa at over $10,000 drug cost per month (see The Wall Street Journal)

Will continue to prolong life an average of ONLY 4.4 monthsaa at over $10,000 drug cost per month

Projected to be ~ $400

$1,500 to $4,000

> $3,000

Recognized to be THE FIRST TRUE TOTAL-BODY High Able to detect cancer at its earliest stage

YES

EXAMINATION COST

~ 40 minutes

The slightest abnormal cancer metabolic activityp (growth) at cellular level

Yesw TRUE TOTAL-BODYv

~ 40 minutes

a

Technical scientific book comparing the Three-Dimensional Complete Body Screening, 3D-CBS technology, with existing PET technology [11].

b

Website comparing PET/CT from GE, Siemens and Philips [117].

c

20

References to articles describing the trend of PET technology moving towards serving mainly the business of increasing cancer cost rather than saving lives. See the effort by Christian Joram’s group Axial-PET project at CERN, which won first prize at the “Physics for Health Workshop” in 2010, to improve spatial resolution in future PET to the detriment of

efficiency. (See comparison of the 3D-CBS project with the Axial-PET project during the Leonardo da Vinci competition at [87]). See also the references to the work by Craig Levin, Deputy Chairman of the 2013 IEEE Medical Imaging Conference, who is focusing on increasing PET resolution to sub-millimeter accuracy but, to the detriment of efficiency. (See several articles by Craig Levin and his collaborators at [118]). d

e

Articles describing the 3D-CBS innovative technology presented by Crosetto at the IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences in 2000 and 2003. See: [9] and [51]. Crosetto’s efforts to increase PET efficiency has been translated into a study based on his innovative 3D-CBS technology (see [11]). He presented a plan (see www.u2ec.net) to build three prototypes to be tested on a sample population aged 50-75 in a location with a constant death rate over the past 20 years. The advantages of his innovative 3D-CBS technology, his plan to build three prototypes and test them on a sample population, providing the benefits of reducing cancer deaths and cost have been discussed in several public forums. No one has been able to invalidate with scientific arguments Crosetto’s claim that his invention would greatly reduce premature cancer deaths and cost. Therefore, funding should be provided to implement 3DCBS prototypes instead of funding less efficient projects that did not go through this public scientific procedure. A difference or no difference in the mortality rate will quantify the success or failure of his proposed solution.

j

The innovations of the 3D-CBS technology will make it possible to achieve an effective EARLY CANCER DETECTION, and also improve the prognosis for the majority of tumors.

k

Efficiency is defined as the number of 511 keV pairs of photons detected by the device divided by the number of 511 keV pairs of photons generated by the annihilation of a positron with an electron.

l

The efficiency of the 3D-CBS is “Very High” because the Field Of View (FOV) of the 3D-CBS is much longer (150 cm vs. 16-18 cm of current PET). Therefore, the 3D-CBS would capture significantly more pairs of photons because the number captured is approximately proportional to the square of the increase in length of the detector. In addition, the efficiency of the 3D-CBS is also increased (a) by the 3D-Flow parallel-processing system capable of accurately capturing as many signals as possible from the tumor markers, (b) by the simplified detector assembly and (c) by its capability to execute 3 x 3, or 4 x 4 real-time complex algorithms for a duration longer than the time interval between two consecutive input data.

m

The efficiency of the existing PET devices (GE, Philips and Siemens) is “Very Low” because the Field Of View (FOV) is only 16 to 18 cm. Verifying this statement is very simple in any hospital or clinic that utilizes a PET. You may ask the PET operator how many valid pairs of 511 keV signals from tumor markers the PET is able to record per second during a specific examination. The total number of pairs of 511 keV tumor marker signals generated per second depends on the dose of radionuclide administered to the patient. 10 mCi of radionuclide (the average amount of radionuclide per examination used for current PET) generates 370 million pairs per second. The EFFICIENCY for any specific PET device can be calculated by dividing the number of valid 511 keV pairs of signals captured by the total number of pairs generated by the radionuclide.

n

Based on the block detectors designed by Christian Joram (see [124]. and the one based on Craig Levin’s (see [122]) the efficiency of the future PET would be “Very Very Low” because they improve spatial resolution at approximately 1 mm to the detriment of efficiency, even when compared to the commercially available PET. Also calculations of their costeffectiveness and efficiency is even lower than existing PET.

o

The examination duration must allow for the capture of enough data to form reliable statistics for different parts of the body showing the slightest abnormal metabolism. The 3D-CBS can capture hundreds of times more data per second compared to current PET. This is because the 3D-CBS captures signals from tumor markers all at once from the entire body lying in a stationary position with a detector that is 150 cm long. The current PET is missing signals from the tumor markers arriving at an angle because the detector is only 16 cm in length. This requires positioning the detector on eleven different parts of the body. The specifications of GE Discovery PET/CT 710 states that the duration of the examination should be the “physician’s preference”. His preference should allow enough data to be acquired thereby avoid “false positives” and “false negatives.” In order to obtain comparable statistical data, the duration of the examination on current PET should be hundreds of times longer than the 3D-CBS examination, which captures hundreds of times more signals per second. This would be impractical, not only for the difficulty and discomfort to remain still for several hours, but also because the radionuclide would cease activity. It is reasonable to expect the examination time for the current PET to last at least ten times longer than the 3D-CBS (40 minutes vs. 4 minutes) in order to provide reliable information to reject at least “false positives” and “false negatives”. However, unlike the 3D-CBS, the acquired data by the current PET would still not provide enough information to make early cancer detection possible. For the above reasons, the values in this table do not match those indicated by the manufacturers. To make any kind of comparison with good statistical data, it would be appropriate for each physician to adopt the suggested 40 minute examination time for GE Discovery PET/CT 710 and Siemens Biograph TruePoint having a detector length of ~ 16 cm, and 35 minutes for Philips Gemini LXL that has a detector length of 18 cm.

p

A physician could receive precious information from instrumentations and make a correct diagnosis to avoid false positives and false negatives when the technique behind each instrument is understood and developed to its full potential. Positron Emission Technique works best when providing information of the slightest abnormal metabolic activity (consumption of nutrient, growth, and for showing other abnormal biological processes tagged by a radionuclide) that other techniques such as Computed

Philips Gemini LXL, PET/CT [119].

f Siemens Biograph TruePoint, PET/CT [120]. g GE Discovery 710, PET/CT [121]. h Craig Levin, Deputy Chairman of the 2013 IEEE-MIC, has written many papers in highly prestigious scientific journals (e.g. fifteen in 2011, eighteen in 2010, eleven in 2009, eighteen in 2008, etc., see [118]) about improving more and more the spatial resolution of the PET, measuring dimensions with a resolution of sub-millimeter accuracy. Because of his intense work in the direction of improving spatial resolution and his 16 articles accepted at a single conference, the 2013 IEEE-MIC, his articles may provide good information on the trend of improving spatial resolution in future PET. Levin received funding to build PET prototypes based on the block detector with crystals 1x1x1 mm3, see [122]). He already has measurements of spatial resolution that is less than 1 mm, with 12% of the photons hitting the detector on the PET camera dedicated to breast imaging presented at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference (M11-20) that allow him to estimate results in saving lives. The only thing missing is the implementation of a protocol to test his PET devices with his block detectors on a sample population aged 50-75 in a location with a constant death rate during the past 20 years and then testing it with prototypes. A difference or no difference in the mortality rate will quantify the success or failure of his proposed solutions. However, a preliminary calculation, even before building his prototype focusing on spatial resolution and not on efficiency will show that it would require administering more than 1 mSv FDG tracer in order to obtain sufficient statistics of photons collected. Because his M11-20 project requires instead 16 mSv of FDG to test for cancer only in one organ, the breast (or neck), this would make it hazardous for screening, making the test protocol to quantify if it provides any difference in the mortality rate non-implementable for safety reasons. i

Christian Joram, spokesman for the CERN Axial-PET collaboration (See [123]) at his 2010 seminar at CERN, illustrated the features for which it was assigned the first prize at the 2010 “Physics for Health” workshop and he claimed advantages of the Axial-PET new concept in building the whole-body PET. Now that the Madame Curie Association and other funding agencies have already funded the construction of the hardware demonstrator for the Axial-PET block detector, a study based on their proposed block detector (see [124]) to build a prototype and a plan to test it on a sample population aged 50-75 in a location with a constant death rate during the past 20 years, should be provided. Their study should be discussed in a public forum. Joram and the Axial-PET collaboration should provide satisfactory answers, based on scientific arguments supporting their claims to all legitimate questions asking for a theoretical demonstration on how they would reduce premature cancer deaths and cost and when three prototypes of their Axial-PET device will be tested on a sample population. After responding satisfactorily to all legitimate questions, three prototypes of their machine should be funded and tested on a sample population. A difference or no difference in the mortality rate will quantify the success or failure of their proposed solution.

21

Tomography (CT), Ultrasound, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Xray, etc., cannot provide. This is what a physician should expect, request and focus on a PET technique: an instrument that precisely measures the slightest abnormal metabolism. It would be an inappropriate use of PET to measure dimensions and CT to measure activities of biological processes at the molecular level, as by analogy it would be inappropriate to use a water meter to measure dimensions and a ruler to measure monthly water consumption. The 3D-CBS develops this technique to its potential in a cost-effective instrument that provides the maximum efficiency in accurately detecting all possible signals from the tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured. q

maximum dose for screening recommended by the International Commission for Radiation Protection –ICRP-) and (c) a low examination cost because of the higher patient throughput given the fact that the 3DCBS can collect more valid data in a shorter time.

It is improper for physicians, oncologists, hospital administrators, etc., to ask PET manufacturers: “What is the spatial resolution of your PET?” instead of asking: “What is the accuracy of your PET in detecting the slightest abnormality in a specific biological process tagged with a radionuclide?” They do not ask what the spatial resolution is of a heart monitor rate device or of an electric kWh meter, because they relate the technique used by the instrument to perform the measurement with the information they expect from the instrument. Therefore, it is inappropriate to ask PET manufacturers to increase the spatial resolution of a device whose technique features an inherent error that can be of several mm due to two natural phenomena that cannot be eliminated. Actually, the tumor can be at a distance of several millimeters from where it appears to be from the image, and could show a significant dimensional error. This is because each positron, originating in the tumor, travels before encountering an electron and then annihilates, generating two photons that will be detected by the PET. The distance travelled is called “positron range” and depends on the radionuclide used (it is 13.8 mm for Rubidium-82, 4.5 mm for Oxygen-15, etc.). The second source of error is the “colinearity error”: the photons generated do not diverge at exactly 180°; the difference in their angle when projected onto the crystal detectors generates an extra error of up to ~ 1.5 mm. Physicians, oncologists and hospital administrators, instead of insisting with PET manufacturers to increase spatial resolution, should ask for an improvement in the accuracy of measuring the slightest abnormal biological process activity. This would provide important information that they were not aware was possible (beyond their imagination) that would contribute to a more accurate diagnosis. It is important for physicians, oncologists and hospital administrators to better understand the physics on which the instruments rely. By doing so, they can ask for useful information that the instrument can provide and not ask for an improvement in the measurement of parameters within the limitations of the technique used by the instrument that will not be helpful in making a more precise diagnosis aimed at saving a patient’s life.

r

Physicians, oncologists and hospital administrators apparently do not understand the physics on which PET technology relies, otherwise they would not continue to ask for an improvement in a feature of the PET that would make researchers go in the wrong direction as it cannot help them in a diagnosis to save lives, but only increases healthcare costs. They ask for an increase in spatial resolution, and researchers like Christian Joram and Craig Levin (see note 3) implement what they ask for to the detriment of efficiency and sensitivity. The block detector designed and implemented by the Axial-PET collaboration led by Christian Joram is complex, and expensive, while its geometry limits the capturing of photons because of numerous gaps in the assembly of several block detectors due to nonsensitive material such as cables, connectors, etc. The documents at [125] highlight these limitations and compare efficiency and cost to the 3D-CBS. Likewise, Craig Levin, influential in the field of PET, describes his block detector that is also complex and expensive on page 3 of his article [126] “…comprises a stack of several 2-dimensional scintillation detector layers comprising arrays of miniscule lutetium yttrium oxyorthosilicate crystal elements.” Minuscule crystal elements introduce many gaps of nonsensitive material that is not interacting with photons, thus reducing sensitivity and increasing cost.

s

The 3D-CBS is effective for early cancer detection because it is efficient, safe and has a low examination cost. These features are achieved because the 3D-CBS can accurately capture all possible signals from the tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured. High efficiency allows: (a) the detection of minimum abnormal metabolism which is a reason to suspect cancer cells as they consume up to 70 times more nutrient than normal cells (b) requires a safe, low radiation dose (0.5% mSv, 1/30 of the dose required by current PET and 50% less than 1 mSv which is the

22

t

Current PET are not suitable for early cancer detection because of their low efficiency, high radiation requirement that makes it hazardous for screening, and a high examination cost. Capturing insufficient signals from the tumor markers does not allow for early detection. The tumor would have to be large or very active at an advance stage in order for current PET to see an anomaly in cell metabolism. Tumors detected at an advanced stage have a much lower probability of saving a patient’s life. Current PET devices require over 10 times the maximum radiation dose recommended by ICRP, thus not permitted for screening. The examination cost is high because patients’ throughput is low due to the fact that a longer time is needed to acquire sufficient data for reliable statistics that would avoid “false positives” and “false negatives”.

u

The direction of research in improving PET by the most influential labs and people (see note 3) is making new machines more inefficient and unsafe for early cancer detection.

v

The meaning of TRUE TOTAL-BODY is a device that can perform a single examination for most organs, capturing tumor markers from the entire body at one time in a stationary position.

w

G. Borasi, F. Fioroni, A. Del Guerra and G. Lucignani. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (2010) 37:1629–1632. Article from leaders in the field stating that Crosetto’s 3D-CBS technology is the first, true “total-body” PET system.

x

Current PET although they might be called Whole-Body PET are not TRUE TOTAL BODY because their detector length is only approximately 16 cm to 18 cm. They are unable to detect most of the oblique signals generated from the tumor markers. This limitation does not allow all three advantages that make early cancer detection effective: (a) high efficiency, (b) low, safe radiation dose and (c) low examination cost.

y

Experimental data from several official sources agree the earlier cancer is detected, the greater the survival rate (in most cases 90% to 98%). See [7].

z

Article describing how one of the best chemotherapy drugs, Avastin, is shrinking tumors (see the article at [127])

aa

The Wall Street Journal on June 2nd, 2013, reports that after ten years of using one of the best chemotherapy drugs, Avastin, experimental data reveals that it has only prolonged life for an average of 4.4 months ($6.3 billion per year Avastin sales, as reported for 2012).

VI. WHAT IT TAKES TO TRANSFER FULL BENEFIT OF MY INVENTIONS FOR THE DISCOVERY OF NEW PARTICLES AND FOR REDUCING CANCER DEATHS AND COST: THE DIALOGUE MAKING SCIENCE PREVAIL FOR THE BENEFIT OF HUMANITY

deaths. For example, increasing the speed of a component, the need to satisfy the investor, the programmability, etc. must be weighed against the need of the consumers and taxpayers to reduce their risk of dying prematurely from cancer and reducing the relevant cost. The best result may not be the highest speed, the largest FPGA, the maximum return to an investor, but finding the best parameter value for each component, that when harmoniously put together provide the most effective results. For this reason, I am addressing in the following three sections what identifies the technological advancements that benefit humanity, and comments I have received from different parties on how the huge problem of high cancer cost yet meager returns in cancer death reduction might be solved.

Despite having made available in publications for more than two decades my technological inventions that would offer real advancement in the discovery of new particles, and despite having published for more than a decade my inventions in medical imaging which offers an effective early cancer detection that would have saved many lives, their full advantages are still not benefitting humanity. One reason is because of the difficulty from funding agencies and decision makers to understand and relate advancements in technology and their benefits to humanity. Besides this difficulty, it is hard to find solicitations for cancer grant applications asking the applicant to estimate the reduction in cancer deaths they expect to attain with their research, as the funding agencies are not interested in these types of results. It is also hard to find solicitations for applications that define a testing protocol to verify results on cancer deaths reduction on a sample population that is fair, whether the research is on a vaccine, drug, screening device, etc. Similarly, for applications in HEP a true dialogue addressing the benefit of each approach, idea, circuit, algorithm, etc. to discover new particles and reduce the cost of HEP experiments is hard to implement. I received a promise several times from leaders in the field to organize a meeting at CERN to address, with the best experts in trigger from major experiments, the benefits of my invention for future experiments or upgrades of current experiments. The CERN Director General, R. Aymar promised such a meeting in 2008. Senior scientist, Nick Ellis, expert in trigger also promised to organize such meeting in 2008. No meeting was ever organized and no answer was provided in this regard from CERN Director General Rolf Heuer, who also received the same request from about 7,000 people who signed a petition. Here are some examples of the need to relate advancements in technology and benefits: To achieve sufficient flexibility in the first level trigger, it is necessary to find the right balance between the use of FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array), ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit), speed, processor architecture, communication between components and detectors, etc. And in the case of Medical Imaging, it is necessary to find the right balance between the use of the crystals, sensors, electronics, cost, etc. Improving one parameter to the detriment of the other and/or maximizing the performance of a few parameters causes a loss of effectiveness in reaching the final objective, such as reducing cancer deaths and cost, and continues to leave the overall final problem unsolved. Improvement comes from analyzing the comments received from different parties, when everyone is trying to solve a specific problem and mitigate, through dialogue, the solution to each specific problem with its global benefit for humanity. In the case of 3D-CBS, this would mean discovering new particles at the most economical cost and reducing cancer

A. Identifying which Technological Advancement Benefits Humanity The objective is to make the connection between the benefit and the instrumentation, technology, approach, etc.,; i.e. whether it be: a half billion dollar instrument (HEP detector) that is needed to find new particles, or a two million dollar PET that should have the goal of reducing cancer deaths and cost. I have made this connection between the technology and the final objective (the benefits of the programmability at the level of raw data input do provide a more powerful tool to discover new particles and increasing sensitivity at a low cost in PET providing a tool to save lives with early cancer detection). I have been told by many scientists to submit my new idea, to make a comparison with other technologies and approaches, to show its advantages with respect to other approaches in regard to the potential to achieve the goal to save lives. I respectfully did so, by submitting abstracts, articles and requesting a dialogue. My technological innovations, described in several documents starting many years ago, are little by little being acknowledged as able to provide benefits. At the same time, it becomes apparent that a lot of money was wasted funding more costly and less efficient solutions, even though reviewers who assigned the funding were aware of my technology. We should address issues at their root, using scientific arguments to identify the trend to follow and the best projects to fund instead of getting consensus with advertisement. Scientists from the CERN experiments CMS and Atlas should ask themselves: “Is less than one hundred events out of one thousand trillion events sufficient to claim the discovery of the Higgs boson or might it be something else as there is no full control of the instrument (CMS and Atlas apparatus) measuring the particles properties?” Having “full control of the instrument designed to find new particles” means the FULL programmability of the first level trigger where the accuracy of the instrumentation can be verified by changing the algorithm to trigger on a specific known event or particle, and check whether the bump at 125 GeV disappears and a different bump appears for the known event. Instead, CMS and Atlas experiments do not even have control to correct the trigger algorithm at the level of the raw data input when pile23

up occurs, not to mention many other limitations in flexibility at the first level trigger. To help solve a similar problem of not having full control of a measuring instrument (HEP detector), after being asked via an appeal at BBC, I sent a letter to the spokesman of the OPERA experiment and to CERN’s Director General, in which I recommended they verify the accuracy of the instrumentation used to measure the speed of the neutrinos and of light. This could be obtained by setting up an experiment where the electronics measuring the speed of light and neutrinos could be swapped. In the end, it turned out that the bump observed was not related to the difference in speed between light and neutrino. Although the merit of Nobel Prize winners François Englert and Peter W. Higgs remains, it is not prudent to state when referring to the Higgs boson “which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider”. Are all decays confirmed, including the decay in tau pairs? It is not my intention to be an advocate for or against the discovery of the Higgs boson, however, documents within CERN and the same collaborations at LHC show a discrepancy regarding the discovery of the Higgs boson. This need to be clarified by scientists. In the seminar on January 9, 2013, at Ref. [128], Sridhara Dasu, a leader at CMS, summarized on slide 51 “Not confirmed yet if the new boson couples to taus […] It will take ~50 fb–1 14 TeV to confirm SM Higgs to taus, 2015-2016? If it is not SM [Standard Model] like Higgs, it will be even more exciting!” Why didn’t Atlas and CMS scientists wait until 2016 to claim the discovery of the Higgs boson when the SM Higgs to taus could have been confirmed? Or, as anticipated by Dasu, to announce that it was not the Higgs boson but something more exciting! This would also help to clarify the statement found on the Wikipedia website of the Higgs boson, “tentatively confirmed by CERN”. Instead, the only claim that can be made, because it is evident and can be proven, is that CMS and ATLAS have implemented a much less efficient and more expensive trigger. Had they fully implemented my 3D-Flow programmable, more powerful tool to discover new particles, that they have known about since 1993, they would not have been limited in understanding the nature of the new particle discovered. My 3D-Flow system provides FULL programmability at the raw data input level, allows for flexibility in future upgrades for 2018, and 2025, and offers flexibility even beyond what has been laid down so far [129]. Just a few examples: it allows changing granularity of the trigger tower from 2x2 to 12x12 or even higher; it allows implementing different pile-up subtraction algorithms based on an estimate of the mean energy density; it allows the subtraction of an appropriate amount of energy to correct for pile-up from the trigger towers, jets, regions of the detector, etc. Despite following many scientists’ advice to submit my articles at conferences, another group of scientists, holding key positions in accepting articles or assigning funding, prevented me from presenting at conferences, rejected my articles submitted to scientific journals and rejected funding my

projects, providing no scientific arguments for doing so. Even the General Chairman of 2008 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference tried to obtain a scientific evidence from the Session’s Chairman that would justify the rejection of my abstracts, but was not offered any explanation. Only later I discovered that the research of my rejected papers were presented by other scientists and in some cases by the same scientists who rejected my work or who were part of the process that prevented me from presenting my work at conferences without providing a scientific reason. For example, I was prevented from presenting my 3D-Flow parallel-processing architecture that would have provided full programmability at the level-0 and level-1 trigger, in September 1998, when I went to the LHC workshop at my own expense in Snowmass (CO), where Wesley Smith and Peter Sharp told me that I could not present my work because I did not have funding. Shouldn’t funding be assigned to the best invention, approach, or project that shows the highest ratio between the potential to discover new particles and experiment cost? In 2008, when I asked Nick Ellis, a senior trigger expert at Atlas, he could not deny that my programmable 3D-Flow parallel-processing architecture could have solved the problem of Atlas trigger as well as the trigger of other experiments, by making it possible to change their algorithm, thus providing more power to all apparatuses (HEP experiments). The triggers of Atlas and CMS experiments cannot make precise measurements and decision (trigger) to capture the precise instant of the head-on collision of two quarks in different protons, because they lack full programmability of the raw data input at the first level trigger. Moreover, this deficiency has been admitted in presentations and articles by CMS and Atlas collaborations at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MICRTSD conference where the authors state that the front-end and back-end electronics should be completely redesigned. Because of the above limitations, it would be imperative to improve the trigger, as the discovery of the Higgs boson can only be confirmed with the full, precise control of the data acquired. In this regard, the CERN OPERA experiment also had results that were not understood, leading to the erroneous interpretation that the neutrino was travelling faster than the speed of light. This was because the experiment setup did not have full control of the measurements. Programmability of the first level trigger of Atlas and CMS experiments would have eliminated uncertainties, by changing the trigger and seeing if the bump at 125 GeV was still there or if it was disappearing. B. Analyzing the comments received I listen to many comments and suggestions from laymen, people who care about solving the cancer problem, leaders in the field and scientists, etc. Here are some of them: a) In general laymen trust the leaders in the field, the experts, the scientists, the doctors, and expect the leaders to be convinced first. b) Manufacturers of the device say they have no requests for a regular screening from the governments and/or the healthcare systems. PET examinations are only reimbursed for certain pathologies. PET manufacturers have developed 24

MRI devices for breast examination more effective than mammograms, however, they claim there is no market for screening because it would be too expensive, and say that governments do not want to reimburse them. c) Investors have a hard time understanding a breakthrough invention and they also put their trust in scientists. They are more likely to believe a large hospital, university or research center than a single individual like me. d) Scientists have different attitudes. For example: at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD one senior scientist declared to me: “You should convince scientists of the benefit of your approach. I know that it takes money to validate your concept. There is a huge industrial interest in this field. This is science, but it is going to be driven by industry. I know that you have interests in social goals, but most of the people are interested in making money and they want to know the benefit in improving image quality. I do not believe what I hear from PET manufacturers who fear that there will not be a market for screening. The nuclear market is set to expand 10% to 15% each year. It is growing, multimodality is where a lot of people are moving. People like Craig Levin, etc., are using their credibility to get funding. Normally people do not form a committee to identify the best project, people will protect their idea instead until they get sponsorship.”

and it would be impossible to expect a substantial death reduction because the examination will not be affordable. I am confident that through a dialogue with these and any other scientists, there will be an understanding in being respectful of someone else’s research and objectives. We could clarify our different goals to the public: mine is to significantly reduce cancer deaths and cost, while those building the EXPLORER PET device target to biomedical research. In a respectful dialogue among scientists, none of us should deny scientific evidences. As scientists we should agree with an approach that is providing 10 picoseconds time resolution versus another that can provide only 500 picoseconds; on the other hand, we should also agree on scientific analysis about the gain in the amount of lives saved using one circuit versus the other. As a scientist I would not deny scientific evidence of someone else’s research just to slander other projects in order to prevent the layman from giving credibility to other researchers. Instead it will be the responsibility to all of us to honestly provide the connection between our project, invention, technological approach and the gain to mankind. In our case, it should be fair for me to state that the EXPLORER PET could be a tool fitting biological research, and it should also be fair for other scientists to state that my 3D-CBS is at present the most powerful tool to significantly reduce cancer deaths and cost. I am not claiming that funding to EXPLORER PET should be stopped. Taking into account the priorities in the interests of taxpayers, why decision makers handling taxpayers’ money did not fund the 3D-CBS in 16 years, while it should have had high priority, being targeted to save millions of lives? Why was the EXPLORER PET funded instead, when it is over ten times more expensive and unable to provide a study on how many lives will be saved in years to come? In their presentation of the paper M03-1 at this conference, authors of the EXPLORER Total-Body PET state that the radiation for the whole body scan is ~ 0.1 mSv (slide 4). If 20 mm of LYSO crystal of the EXPLORER with a photon stopping power of 70% requires only 0.1 mSv radiation dose, then, with 25 mm of BGO with a stopping power of 93%, my 3D-CBS would require even lower radiation. This confirms that my estimated 0.33 mSv radiation dose was conservatively estimated, and according to their calculation should be 0.08 mSv, far less than 1 mSv recommended by ICRP for screening. Therefore, it was known, although opposed for funding, that all benefits to the patient listed in the EXPLORER slides could have been made available 16 years ago, implementing my 3D-CBS, at low examination cost making it affordable for screening a large number of people and saving many lives. However, for 16 years the same people refused to acknowledge my 3D-CBS technology as credible. As a consequence other funding agencies and philanthropists interested in achieving my goals did not support my project. It is not acceptable that during the past 13 years, scientists who were asked to review my book stated that it was not necessary to build a PET with a FOV longer than about 15 cm, because the largest organs are about that size, and that reducing the radiation given to the patient is not important

C. The DIALOGUE will create a win-win situation for all those interested in reducing cancer deaths and cost Analyzing all these comments, suggestions, and answers, one can find contradictions that when resolved through the DIALOGUE will allow the cancer problem to be solved. For instance, one statement puts the trust in the scientists who should understand the benefits of an approach, idea, or invention, before it is built, however, money is needed to validate a concept. Another statement says that science is going to be driven by industry, therefore, who is going to choose which project has more merit? Scientists or industry? Money should come with credibility, however, ideas should be protected by patents and not by secrecy, which prevents the identification of the best proposals, the most “credible”. So, to whom should trust be given? To science? To the scientists? To the honest professionals? How can one trust scientists who copy somebody else’s ideas, form an agreement with likeminded scientists who handle taxpayer’s money and assign grants to each other, so that four grants (R01 CA170874, R01 EB16104, R01 EB009056, R01 CA113941), each of over $1 million, are assigned to build the EXPLORER PET device? How is it possible that the scientist who made the original invention, who proceeded to patent the idea, has received no grants after nine years of applications, only because he wants to build a device for screening for early detection to save lives? I received clear statements from NIH senior officers since 1996, urging me to avoid mentioning the word “screening” for early cancer detection in my proposals. The DIALOGUE should make clear that all these scientists already spent millions of dollars and did not provide results in reducing cancer deaths and cost. Now, concerning the EXPLORER PET, it is known from its design, even before construction that the price of the device will be astronomical 25

because they will receive radiation anyway. Others claimed that in order to increase PET efficiency, crystals had to be improved and not electronics as I claimed. However, facts and several articles following this statement demonstrated that improved electronics made PET more efficient. It is not acceptable that I am prevented from presenting my research at conferences, from publishing articles without receiving scientific arguments for the rejection. It is not acceptable that attempts to inform the citizens about the advantage of the screening with the 3D-CBS, reducing the economic cancer cost of $1.4 trillion per year, and substantially reduce premature cancer deaths, are blocked by prominent scientists, nor that I am told, that I should not try to contact newspapers, magazines or media, and that I should not ask questions at conferences, which would put them in a difficult position. It is not acceptable that if we try to inform the public about the possibility to eliminate the discrepancy between high cancer cost and meager results, we are attacked on all fronts. We started a crowd-funding with this project in May, 2013, and in July 2013, our four websites were attacked with malware viruses. We started another campaign in October 2013, and after a first sending stage during which our Internet reputation rapidly grew, our mailserver fell into Spamhaus blacklist. Our domain www.u2ec_dot_org is reported in the blacklist of Razor, used by “Spamassassin.” The filter of our email was so effective that we could not exchange e-mails among collaborators if the e-mail contained the word www.u2ec_dot_org. Thus, we could not receive contributions because we could not reach recipients. It is hard to believe that all these attacks in such a short time, in coincidence with our campaigns, were accidental. There must be very strong interests against saving lives with early cancer detection that only the support by every reader to send this document to their friend can overcome this opposition and reduce cancer deaths and cost. I have been open with all parties and asked to address openly any statement in any of my websites or documents which are inaccurate. Why are there all these anonymous attacks which ultimately are damaging the interest of the taxpayers and cancer patients? They deserve more respect and honesty from those who use their tax-dollars: citizens put their trust in decision makers to receive something valuable their money and not for being deceived.

This is a mass killing. Society, media, and world leaders were rightly outraged when Assad gassed 1,400 people. For days and weeks, media and world leaders as they should, talked about this, forcing Assad into a dialogue to eliminate their stockpile of chemical weapons to prevent similar occurrences in the future. Likewise, media rightly continues to talk about the mass murder of 6 million Jews 60 years ago in order to remind everyone that such tragedies should not be repeated. We are talking of 6.5 million people per year, over 100 million since my invention was made available whose many lives could have been saved. How long will it take to fund my innovations and quantify the number of lives saved per year with experimental results, i.e. by conducting a test on a sample population aged 50-74, that has a constant death rate from cancer? A difference in the mortality rate will quantify the success of the solution proposed. The funding of the 3D-CBS must be done immediately to avoid saying in the future after it is available that we had the opportunity to save many lives with a single economical exam covering all organs of the body but we lost millions of lives instead. Since the early part of this century there have been many declarations similar to the one made by Nixon when he signed the Health Care Act of 1971 “…signing this bill, the Congress is totally committed to provide the funds that are necessary, whatever is necessary, for the conquest of cancer” and continued when the NCI (National Cancer Institute) director promised a victory over cancer by 1976. However, five years later, no significant results in cancer death reduction could be reported and the target date was moved forward; this pattern of shifting the target date when the goal has not been met continues to this date. Among the most recent declarations is the one in 2003, when the director of NCI130 issued a challenge "…to eliminate the suffering and death from cancer, and to do so by 2015"; followed by the declaration by UICC (United for International Cancer Control) in 2008 that set the target date as 2020, and yet another declaration by WHO (World Health Organization) at the world cancer leaders’ summit on November 18, 2011, which moved the target date to reduce cancer deaths by 25% to 2025. After half a century of fighting cancer, there is still no significant reduction in the cancer death rate. The small reduction of only 5% that is recorded for cancer by WHO can be attributed mainly to cessation from smoking and lifestyle changes rather than merit of research. During this same period mortality from strokes was reduced by 74%, heart disease by 64%, flu and pneumonia by 58% as reported by several sources including The New York Times on April 24, 2009. All this, in spite of enormous investments that have increased the cost of cancer treatment by 100 times [131] in the last 50 years, reaching a global economic cancer cost of $1.4 trillion per year, equivalent to over $850 per person per year in an industrialized country. In spite of the $37 billion spent on 124,000 cancer projects as detailed in the Cancer Research Project Comparison Table [132], and in spite of knowing for 67 years that early detection would save 50% of lives and in spite of having thousands of doctors, healthcare workers,

VII. THE PREVENTABLE MASS KILLING OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE PER YEAR MUST BE STOPPED! WHO CAN YOU TRUST? It is known that cancer is prematurely taking about 6.5 million lives per year. Yet many reputable sources state that we could have saved 50% of cancer deaths through early cancer detection for the past 67 years. Experimental data from several official sources led to the conclusion that the earlier cancer is detected, the greater the survival rate (in most cases, 90% to 98%). If early cancer detection is what saves lives, who is obstructing scientific procedures aimed at identifying the most cost-effective solutions for early cancer detection? 26

volunteers, donors and taxpayers, etc., who care deeply for cancer patients, putting their heart and soul into saving them with all the means at their disposal, they currently have no other choice but to watch them die in spite of their efforts because they cannot avail themselves of viable technologies. Who should the public trust? A scientist who offered me his comments at the conference said that scientists are using their credibility to get money. Credibility clearly is a combination of professional competence and honesty. I hope that the information provided in Table I showing chronologically twenty years of facts proving my claims are supported by scientific evidences, and little by little those who were not convinced had to recant their statements shows that I have competence in the field. Facts shows that what I stated years before, even if not understood immediately, was later proven experimentally correct. In some cases those who were skeptical about my claims, achieved results on their own and had to recant their position. For more than 20 years I have a record of serving science and humanity, when I had the choice between my personal interest and the interest of advancing in science for the benefit of humanity, I put the future of others before my own [133]. This can be verified by looking at my Social Security record for the past 14 years. I used the money I had available to buy components to advance science. In spite of this, I still receive comments from people who do not want to provide the information contained in this document, claiming that what I am doing is for self interest and prefer to fund other research for billions of dollars without even asking what they can expect in return.

Q&A session of the plenary meeting of the conference on October 30, 2013. A practical way to find a satisfactory answer to all these and other questions is to implement several public forums aimed at obtaining, reliable scientific, historical truthful information that is summarized for the public in a easily accessible platform such as Wikipedia. In this regard an agreement was reached at the conference: - with Craig Levin, who on the last day of the conference approached me offering help if I would organize a forum at the next IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference in Seattle in Nov. 8-15, 2014. The focus of the forum will be to identify a connection between technological advances and benefits to society, in particular, identifying the projects with the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. - with several leaders in the field of particle physics and medical imaging to continue the forum through email exchange started on September 23, 2013 with the objective of providing correct information to the public in the Wikipedia page reporting the history of PET and the role of current PET, and the 3D-CBS. And on another Wikipedia page of Level-0 (or Level1) trigger for HEP experiments, reporting the history of the trigger, how different approaches cope with the increased rate and luminosity of large and future experiments. The public place their trust in the scientists and these two public actions should prove to deserve their trust. It will be the responsibility of cultural groups, media, schools and every concerned citizen to disseminate this article and to support the transparency in scientific research that would show it is serving the interest of the ones who fund it: the citizens. Funding agencies, philanthropists, and laymen should be clearly informed about the goals and results expected from these forums and e-mail exchanges. Because my invention that would benefit Medical Imaging is based on particle detection, a Wikipedia webpage reporting the correct scientific information about the decision unit (trigger) that allows capturing the desired particles and suppressing the noise is equally important and herein I provide more detailed information. It should be possible to explain the trigger in a video to laymen as Joe Incandela beautifully explained in a video the collision that is generating the Higgs boson that I watched on an American Airlines flight on my way to the IEEE conference. He explained that in only one out of a trillion events will two quarks inside two different protons have a chance to collide head-on. Now that we have made laymen curious while traveling with American Airlines, scientists need to explain in simple terms the features that this decision unit (trigger) should have in order to capture a specific particle. In HEP experiments it will mean capturing the Higgs boson and in the PET Medical Imaging applications it will mean the accurate capture of all

VIII. ACTIONS THAT WILL CHANGE THE TREND AND MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO SOLVE THE CANCER PROBLEM! The 6.5 million premature lives lost every year can be reduced considerably, at least by 50% with early cancer detection, as known for over half a century. A transparent dialogue implementing scientific procedures aimed at achieving this goal is key to the solution of the cancer problem. Media, cultural groups and public opinion should react against anyone who is obstructing this dialogue in the same way they reacted against Assad and many others who approved mass murder, knowing that many lives could have been saved through the dialogue. I am serving cancer patients as well as the interest of the citizens. I made a promise to my late friend, Lillo Mulone and to many others who lost their lives prematurely from cancer. I promised that I would do everything I could to receive from the decision makers, satisfactory answers to the legitimate questions that Lillo and many others submitted, in order to put an end to the cancer calamity. Examples of legitimate questions are those asked by Lillo in an email to the CERN Scientific Director on January 10, 2011, those asked in a petition signed by over 7,000 people and hand delivered to CERN Director General on February 4, 2010, those made to the General Chairman and its participants of the 2013 IEEENSS-MIC-RTSD conference by the group “One Hand for….” which I presented orally before thousands of scientists at the 27

possible 511 keV pairs of photons generated from the annihilation of a positron-electron in order to lower the radiation to the patient and to achieve an effective early detection. I suggest that all large experiments work on describing the history of the decision unit (level-0 or level-1 trigger) that was designed in the past, the current one used to identify the Higgs boson, and how it should be improved to accommodate more stringent requirements is capturing special collisions at a higher rate. In a HEP experiment the level-0 (or level-1) trigger unit plays a role far more important than all other sections (DAQ, detectors, software, etc.). If the trigger does not capture the right collision, most likely to contain the Higgs boson (or the specific particle that physicists are searching for), all other units, software calculations, time and money spent to make a magnificent, complex apparatus are wasted. Therefore, I suggest creating a similar forum aiming at defining a Wikipedia Trigger page for the different experiments in place.

functionality for the construction of level-0 (or level-1) trigger systems used in HEP experiments and PET devices, both with detectors of any dimension. For PET applications, I have provided the references to my 3D-CBS technology described in two articles [9], [10], presented at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference, and in a book [11] 200 copies of which I distributed to the leaders in the field attending the same conference. These documents detail the system concept from electronics and mechanics assembly, to circuits. They also explain how to acquire all possible valid data with zero dead-time, how to more accurately measure the total photon energy by summing a larger number of signals around the local maxima, improving time resolution with DSP functions on the signals slope, and improving the “x” and “y” spatial resolution with a 3x3, 4x4, 5x5 algorithm instead of the less accurate 2x2 algorithm used in current PET. Furthermore, it allows the implementation of several existing DOI (“z”) spatial resolution techniques offering also the flexibility to implement additional techniques. These measurements, performed at zero dead time, are extremely accurate because they are obtained by applying a complex algorithm that is more effective at rejecting noise. This is why they go beyond the imagination of what was considered possible before my inventions. My detailed description complied so well with the last part of the IEEE requirement “…sufficiently complete that others with comparable equipment could repeat the work”, that 12 years later three universities, UCDavis, PENN and Berkeley, found it feasible to plan to build a PET EXPLORER [30] with long FOV, and confirmed the advantages that I claimed in my articles and book written in the year 2000. These advantages turned out not only to be achievable, but even conservative. However, they still did not envision how to achieve these advantages at a fraction (1/10) of their cost which I had demonstrated in detail in 2000 was achievable. No other PET designs with long FOV are described in detail as is the 3DCBS showing feasibility and functionality supporting the claims of an innovation in advancements which can greatly benefit mankind. In order to maximize saving lives and reducing cost, a long FOV PET should achieve very high sensitivity, high spatial resolution, low radiation dose, and low examination cost. This will enable an affordable screening with an effective early detection to a large population. The 3DCBS innovative technology maximizes all these features thus maximizing the number of lives saved. Furthermore, I have protected my innovations with patents and have committed to donate 80% of the income from their license to benefit cancer patients. The goal is to maximize the benefits they can bring to patients and citizens. The most important part of the validation of my claims regarding the advantages of a feasible 3D-CBS is that it requires only 0.33 mSv, lower than the 1 mSv recommended for screening by ICRP. The three universities confirmed that an even lower value of 0.1 mSv can be achieved, using a 20 mm LYSO crystal that gives a photon stopping power of 70%. Therefore, my 0.33 mSv estimate can in fact be 0.08 mSv because the 3D-CBS is using 25 mm BGO that gives 93% photon stopping power.

IX. CONCLUSIONS This paper has demonstrated that my approaches and inventions have been from the time of their conception, and still are “Beyond Imagination of Future Science”, in the discovery of new particles and lowering the cost of HEP experiments, as well as providing a significant leap forward in the reduction of premature cancer deaths and cost through early cancer detection. Facts and documents prove that my inventions were and still are “Beyond Imagination of Future Science”, from the first official recognition of the 3D-Flow system architecture at FERMILab in December1993 as a “unique” concept that would allow experimenters to go beyond what they thought would be possible. Still today, identifying new particles efficiently at a low cost is not possible because the features of my inventions have neither been fully understood nor implemented. I diligently implemented the request by IEEE, as reported on page 21 of the booklet of this conference “…present a set of conclusions supported by measured and/or calculated data. The paper should be sufficiently complete that others with comparable equipment could repeat the work”. I provided the references to a 45-page peer-reviewed NIM article [44] reporting the details of my 3D-Flow system concept, the electronics and mechanical assemblies, as well as the VHDL code of the key circuits, etc. All these components result into a complete level-0 (or level-1) trigger of a HEP experiment with unprecedented capability of offering full programmability at the raw-data input level, and neighboring channels data exchange. It can accurately capture as many signals as possible satisfying a particle identification complex algorithm (or an algorithm to efficiently capture signals from the tumor markers for Medical Imaging applications) at the lowest cost per valid signal captured compared to existing triggers of large experiments and existing PET devices, while effectively filtering noise. Later, I provided the references [86] to the modular hardware of the system proving its feasibility and 28

This confirmation is important as it reverses all negative comments that have discouraged investors and philanthropists over the past 12 years from funding my 3D-CBS project. On the other hand, it puts a bigger burden of responsibility on the decision makers and experts in the field who wrote negative reviews that prevented its benefits from being realized, and now 12 years later must recognize that my invention does have these lifesaving features at a cost of less than 1/10 the cost of the EXPLORER PET. Over 100 million people have died prematurely of cancer from the time my first grant submitted to NIH-NCI was rejected 16 years ago. At that time I was asked by the NIH reviewers not to mention screening for early cancer detection, but to focus on improving PET spatial resolution rather than sensitivity. Yet many reputable sources state that we could have saved 50% of cancer deaths through early cancer detection. Who must take responsibility for these millions of lives lost that could have been saved, if my 3D-CBS breakthrough technology had been recognized and funded 13 years ago? Were those people aware that my breakthrough invention could have saved many lives? Was there a deliberate plan not to fund it and obstruct its benefits from reaching humanity? Media, government agencies, humanitarian groups and associations of concerned citizens are rightly outraged by the gassing of 1,400 people by Assad’s regime, knowing that these people could have been saved with a dialogue. We should expect that all these groups will be even more outraged by the killing of over 6.5 million people per year by cancer, knowing that we could have a 3D-CBS tool offering an effective early cancer detection that could have saved many of those lives, and yet nothing is being done to fund this technology. Now that the three universities have confirmed my claims are legitimate, from now on nothing should obstruct the delivery of my articles and documentation providing scientific information, in the interest of the citizens. Neither should any obstacle prevent the possibility to save millions of lives. All people competent in this field should take responsibility and follow scientific procedures in an open dialogue, where everyone can honestly and respectfully discuss and scrutinize each other’s research. Funding agencies, philanthropists, media and laymen should be clearly informed about this breakthrough invention. The chronology of facts and the leaders in the field who recanted their statements for over a decade, prove that many people could have been saved had this invention which still has the highest potential to save millions of lives through an effective early detection been utilized. The challenge for all projects, approaches, and invention that claim to reduce cancer deaths and cost is presenting a plan on how to test results on a sample population of 10,000 people ages 50-75 taken from a location where the mortality rate was constant during the past 20 years. A difference or no difference in mortality rate will quantify the success or failure of the proposed solution. This challenge should not only be understandable and considered fair for any philanthropist or donor who wants to receive the most impact with his money, it should also be

considered fair for any cancer research association or researcher whose primary goal should be to maximize the success in solving the cancer problem for society. Media, cultural associations, humanitarian groups, etc., at this point should do something to help solve the most deadly and costly calamity, disseminating this article, promoting the dialogue on this issue to reduce cancer deaths and cost. Leaders of cultural associations have an important role to play in making this world more civil and respectful. By preventing me from informing their members about the importance of this DIALOGUE aiming to identify the inconsistencies in “culture” that are damaging them and society in lives and money lost, they would be contributing to the obstruction of achieving a reduction in cancer deaths and cost. Any statement will help address this issue and would give a chance to clarify or optimize the effort in the right direction. ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to thank the following people for their help editing this document: Diana D’Amari, Jennifer Colburn, Vittorio Remondino, Laura Mantegazza, Frank Guy, Ruben Sonnino, Umberto Bellotti, Tillman Hein; Karl Ziebarth and Monika Campbell. REFERENCES [1] D. Crosetto inventions for the discovery of new particles in High Energy Physics (HEP) and reducing the cost of experiments and for reducing cancer deaths and cost through an effective early detection http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/300.pdf [2] D. B. Crosetto, “Breaking the speed barrier in real-time applications to make advances in particle detection, medical imaging and astrophysics,” Poster presented at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD, Conf. Rec., R05-52, http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/801.pdf [3] Editorial staff of the newspaper “magaze”: “Dal Texas, la promessa del Ricercatore scientifico Dario Crosetto allo scomparso amico stefanese Lillo Mulone” Wednesday, July 24, 2013. http://www.magaze.it/wps/2013/07/24/dal-texas-la-promessa-delricercatore-scientifico-dario-crosetto-allo-scomparso-amico-stefaneselillo-mulone/ - Translation: “From Texas, the promise of the research scientist, Dario Crosetto to the deceased friend, Lillo Mulone”. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/867.pdf [4] D. Crosetto, “Before personal gain” http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/432.pdf [5] American Cancer Society and LiveStrong: “Global Economic Cost of Cancer $1.4 trillion/year. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/41.pdf [6] 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 [7] SEER – Surveillance Epidemiology End Results: Experimental data from several official sources agree the earlier cancer is detected, the greater the survival rate (in most cases 90% to 98%). http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/233.pdf [8] National Geographic October 1946. It is known since 67 years that early cancer detection could have saved 50% cancer deaths http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/67.pdf [9] D. Crosetto: “A modular VME or IBM PC based data acquisition system for multi-modality PET/CT scanners of different sizes and detector types.” Presented at the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, Lyon, France, 2000, IEEE-2000563, http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/69.pdf.

29

[10] D. Crosetto: “Real-time, programmable, digital signal-processing electronics for extracting the information from a detector module for multi-modality PET/SPECT/CT scanners.” Presented at the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, Lyon, France, 2000, IEEE-2000-567, http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/99.pdf [11] D. Crosetto: “400+ time improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower cost cancer screening.” Technical-scientific book presented at the IEEE Nuclear Science Sympos. and Medical Imaging Conf., Lyon, France, 2000: ISBN 0-9702897-0-7. 2000. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/431.pdf [12] R. Dowing at al.: Report of the review of the 3D-Flow parallelprocessing architecture for a programmable level-1 trigger, held at FERMILab on December 14, 1993. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/874.pdf [13] W. Smith claims http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/810.pdf [14] Question to CERN Scientific Director, S. Bertolucci in regard to the assignment of the first prize at the workshop “Physics for Health” held at CERN in February 2010. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/851.pdf [15] V. Vigna and D. Crosetto. Letters written to CERN Scientific Director S. Bertolucci in regard their meeting on 1/12/2011. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/813.pdf [16] Link to the 2012 TDR of CMS for the upgrade of the Level-1 trigger. https://cds.cern.ch/record/1556311/files/CMS-TDR-012.pdf [17] S. Bertolucci, D. Crosetto, and V. Vigna. Report to cancer patients of the meeting held at CERN on January 12, 2011. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/812.pdf [18] D. Crosetto: "General Programmable Level-1 Trigger with 3D-Flow Assembly System for Calorimeters of Different Sizes and Event Rates. SSCL-607, Dec. 1992. Submitted to Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research. [19] D. Crosetto: A fast cluster finding system for future HEP experiments. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A311 (1992) pp. 49-56. [20] D. Crosetto: "A modular parallel processing system for trigger decision and DAQ in HEP experiments," Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, A315, (1992), 487-490. [21] D. Crosetto: "3D-Flow Processor for a Programmable Level-1 Trigger," Computing in High Energy Physics, CHEP92, 21-25 September, 1992, Annecy, France, 803-806. [22] D. Crosetto: "Calorimeter Programmable Level-1 Trigger," III International Conference on Calorimetry in High Energy Physics, Corpus Christi, Sept. 29-Oct. 2, 1992. SSCL-Preprint-180, October 1992. [23] D. Crosetto: "3D-Flow Processor for a Calorimeter Programmable Level-1 Trigger," SSCL-Preprint-165, TNS Conference Issue, November 1992 [24] D. Crosetto: "3D-Flow Processor for a Programmable Level-1 Trigger," SSCL-Preprint-164, Nuclear Science Symposium (NSS), Medical Imaging Conference (MIC), Orlando, Florida, October 25-31. 1992 [25] D. Crosetto, grant proposals submitted over nine years to NIH-NCI http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/81.pdf [26] S. DeRenzo claims that crystal efficiency should be improved rather than electronics http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/814.pdf [27] Siemens announcement on their web site that they improved PET efficiency by 70% http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/815.pdf [28] J. Karp’s reason for rejecting papers http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/816.pdf [29] J. Karp’s communications http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/817.pdf [30] S. Cherry, et. all. “EXPLORED WHOLE BODY PET” http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/818.pdf [31] U. Bratzler communications http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/284.pdf [32] Testimonial letter about Crosetto’s work and inventions http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/167.pdf [33] W. Smith claim in 1993 that programmability at the first level trigger is not necessary http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/819.pdf [34] W. Smith in 2008 recant his statements http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/820.pdf [35] D. Crosetto’s basic invention was recognize valuable and adopted by the Gamma, Electron and Muon (GEM) collaboration at the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). It was included in their

detector technical design report from page 7-10 to 7-13 with references at page 7-86 of GEM-TN-93-262, SSCL-SR-1219, Jul 31, 1993, http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/821.pdf [36] D. Crosetto receives about $1 million SBIR grants http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/822.pdf [37] D. Crosetto: "Massively Parallel-Processing System with 3D-Flow Processors.” Published by IEEE Computer Society. 0-81816-63227194, pp. 355-369. 1994. [38] D. Crosetto: “Real-Time system design environment for multichannel high-speed data acquisition system and pattern-recognition.” IEEE Real Time conference, Santa Fe, (NM) June 14-18, 1999. [39] D. Crosetto: “Fast Particles Identification in Programmable form at Level-0 Trigger by means of the 3D-Flow System.” Fourth Workshop on Electronics for LHC Experiments. Pp. 517-522. September 21-25, 1998 [40] LHCb Letter Of Intent (LOI) 1995 adopted the 3D-Flow for the calorimeter and muon level-0 trigger http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/823.pdf [41] LHCb adopted the 3D-Flow system. It was included in their detector Technical Proposal from page 102 to 104 of CERN-LHCC-98-04, CERN-LHCC-P-4, Feb 1998. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/824.pdf [42] M. Botlo, D. Crosetto, et al.: The STAR cluster-finder ASIC. Proc. Xth IEEE Real Time Conference 1997, Beaune, France, September 22-26, 1997. [43] D. Crosetto: “System Design and Verification Process for LHC Programmable Trigger Electronics” IEEE NSS-MIC. Seattle (WA) Oct. 24-30, 1999. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/118.pdf [44] D. Crosetto: 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://links.u2ec.com/doc2/147.pdf Part 2 http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/148.pdf [45] Communications with IEEE senior reviewer Les Rogers, who was referring to the classical pipelining and to other architectures, having difficulties to understand my invention. Only after he expressed his view point and I pointed out the difference between my invention and his viewpoint progress was made in understanding my innovations. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/825.pdf http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/826.pdf http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/827.pdf http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/828.pdf http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/829.pdf http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/830.pdf http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/831.pdf http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/832.pdf http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/833.pdf http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/834.pdf [46] D. Crosetto, et al.: "Understanding a new idea for a Cancer Screening device" Available at Amazon.com, ISBN 0-9702897-1-5. Pub. October 12, 2000. [47] T. Jones, communications http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/835.pdf [48] D. Crosetto: “Saving lives through early cancer detection: Breaking the current PET efficiency barrier with the 3D-CBS.” Presented on May 16, 2001 at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, on May 18 at the University of Turin, Italy and on May 21, 2001 at the University hospital of Geneva. Available at http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/836.pdf [49] D. Crosetto: First proof of concept in hardware of Crosetto’s invention http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/837.pdf [50] Siemens statements in 2002 that they could not improve the efficiency of their PET http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/838.pdf [51] D. Crosetto: “The 3-D Complete Body Screening (3D-CBS) Features and Implementation” IEEE-NSS-MIC-2003. Conference Record. M7129. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/107.pdf [52] D. Crosetto: "Development of an Innovative Three-Dimensional Complete Body Screening Device - 3D-CBS" Book: Astroparticle, Particle and Space Physics, Detectors and Medical Physics Applications. Editor: World Scientific, 2004, pp. 350-359. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/103.pdf [53] R. Costa. Letter from Hon. Costa to Sirchia http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/839.pdf [54] D. Crosetto. Documentation provided on 11/17/2004 to the Italian CSS Committee on 11/17/2004 http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/294.pdf [55] D. Crosetto: “Come Vincere il Cancro”. Book. Ed. Clavilux. 2005. Available at www.clavilux.it [56] D. Crosetto: "Rethinking Positron Emission Technology for Early Cancer Detection" Book: Astroparticle, Particle and Space Physics,

30

Detectors and Medical Physics Applications. Editor: World Scientific, 2006, pp. 692-696. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/112.pdf [57] D. Crosetto: Letter date 1/31/2006 to NIH Director, Elias Zerhouni hand delivered at the NIH Press Release on Medical Imaging. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/438.pdf [58] Video of the meeting between Crosetto and Zerhouni at the Press release http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/437.pdf [59] M. Codato and L. Nardini: Questionnarire evaluating the 3D-CBS project after four days inspection in Dallas http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/162.pdf [60] D. Crosetto: "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://links.u2ec.com/doc2/134.pdf [61] D. Crosetto, V. Vigna, “Heath Care First” Editor: Associazione Vita, Corso Garibaldi, 78. 27013 Chignolo Po (PV), Italy [62] Video of the conference in Cuneo organized by the President of the Province, Hon. Raffaele Costa. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/840.pdf [63] Video Seminar by Crosetto on “Planetary Emergencies” http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/841.pdf [64] D. Crosetto: “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. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/211.pdf [65] Video of the public international review of the 3D-CBS held at the Ordine dei Medici in Rome in 2008 http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/842.pdf [66] Review of the 3D-CBS innovative technology for early cancer detection: Announcement and questionnaire http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/843.pdf [67] Video of Crosetto’s seminars at major Italian hospitals http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/844.pdf [68] Video of Crosetto’s seminar from CMS conference room at CERN, via EVO http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/845.pdf [69] D. Crosetto: Absract of the proposal submitted by Crosetto to CPRIT http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/321.pdf [70] D. Crosetto: Significance of the proposal submitted by Crosetto to CPRIT http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/322.pdf [71] D. Crosetto: "Funding 3D-CBS: Changing the Role of PET for Cancer Screening " Book: Astroparticle, Particle and Space Physics, Detectors and Medical Physics Applications. Editor: World Scientific, pp.615620 - 2009. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/134.pdf [72] Video by D. Tedesco that explains Crosetto invention with an analogy of solving a problem contained in envelops arriving at high rate http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/846.pdf [73] Reason CPRIT did not read Crosetto’s proposal for early cancer detection http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/847.pdf [74] Video of the seminar and Q&A that Crosetto gave on September 2009 at BNL http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/848.pdf [75] D. Crosetto, V. Sereno, G. Pedroli, D. Salvo, G. Borasi, F. Fioroni: “A proposito della tecnologia innovativa 3D-CBS di Dario Crosetto.” A 42 page article on the “Notiziario di Medicina Nucleare ed Imaging Molecolare” May 2009, reporting the dialogue between Dario Crosetto who is responding to an article by the leaders in Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging in Italy. (See http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/288.pdf). After this 42 page dialogue, Crosetto’s invention was recognized, in an article on European Journal Nuclear Molecular Imaging (March 26, 2010) 37:1629-1632 by the leaders in the field in Italy, Luciniani, G., Del Guerra, A., Fioroni, F., and Borasi, G. who stated on page 1630: «The first proposal for a truly “total-body” PET system (120–160 cm AFOV) came from an Italian physicist, Crosetto [6]» citing Crosetto’s article presented at the IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in Lyon (France) in 2000. (See http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/69.pdf). [76] D. Crosetto: “FUNDING 3D-CBS: A BREAKTHROUGH TECHNOLOGY, SAFE FOR SCREENING AND EFFICACIOUS FOR EARLY CANCER DETECTION.” Article presented at the Conference “The Contribution of Italian Researchers in the World.” Italian

Consulate, Houston, Texas, December 2009. See pages 35-53 at http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/875.pdf [77] D. Crosetto, F. and Guy: “HOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF CANCER AND REDUCE ITS ECONOMICAL BURDEN: Fund Only Research Projects with Real Potential to Reduce Premature Cancer Deaths.” Poster presented at the Conference “The Contribution of Italian Researchers in the World.” Italian Consulate, Houston, Texas, December 2010. See at http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/410.pdf [78] Links to newspapers reporting the article by V. Arcobelli in regard to “The contribution of Italian Researchers in the World” http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/876.pdf [79] D. Crosetto: “Progress in the domain of physics applications in life science with the 3D-CBS invention for substantial reduction of premature cancer deaths: an optimized PET for low cost low radiation dose high efficiency cancer screening”. Abstract ID 87 and poster presented at the “Physics for Health in Europe. February 2-3, 2010, CERN, Switzerland. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/849.pdf [80] M. Banchio, M. Bently, L. Colombo, D. Crosetto, F. Gaspari, F. Guy, S. Ratti, P. Saunier, V. Sereno, R. Sonnino, D. Verra, V. Vigna, A. Werbrouck, J. Zagami, A. Zonta, and about 1,000 cosigners: “Progress in the domain of physics applications in life science with an invention for substantial reduction of premature cancer death: the need for a paradigm change in oncology research”. Abstract ID 78 and poster presented at the “Physics for Health in Europe. February 2-3, 2010, CERN, Switzerland. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/371.pdf [81] D. Crosetto: Letter to UICC CEO, Cary Adams Feb 2010. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/850.pdf [82] D. Verra: Letter by Danilo Verra to CERN Director General 2010, http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/403.pdf [83] Announcement and 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://links.u2ec.com/doc2/2.pdf [84] D. Crosetto: Book: “The Future is in Our Hands. EVERY YEAR: 10 Million Preventable Deaths and Trillions of Dollars LOST.” November 2011. See http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/100.pdf [85] D. Crosetto: Letter dated October 2, 2011 to the Spokesman of CERNOPERA experiment, Antonio Ereditato who made an appeal for help at the BBC and other media and newspapers. They cannot interpret their data showing neutrinos travelling faster than light. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/852.pdf [86] D. Crosetto provided the schematics proving that his electronics built in 2003 was hundreds of times more accurate than CERN-OPERA electronics built in 2008 and advertized on CERN Bulletin as with “outstanding accuracy”. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/700.pdf [87] D. Crosetto: Comparison in efficiency and cost per photon captured of the 3D-CBS project to CERN Axial-PET, FERMIlab-TOF-PET and BNL-PET projects provided by Crosetto to the Leonardo da Vinci review panel at the University of Pavia and to the world publicly via internet: http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/40.pdf [88] Minutes of the open meeting held on June 8, 2011 at the University of Pavia, Italy, to determine the winner of the Leonardo da Vinci competition by subjecting each entry to public scrutiny. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/50.pdf [89] Statements by leaders of trigger of the major experiment at the trigger Session of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/852.pdf [90] Cancer patient Lillo Mulone informed organizations who have the trust of the people in providing useful information in their best interest http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/854.pdf [91] D. Crosetto: “The Future is in Our Hands: How to Reduce Millions of Preventable Deaths and Trillions of Dollars LOST Every Year” Slides presented at World Cancer Congress (WCC) in Montreal, Canada, August, 27-30, 2012. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/504.pdf [92] D. Crosetto distributed a free book: “The Future is in Our Hands. EVERY YEAR: 10 Million Preventable Deaths and Trillions of Dollars LOST” to the participants at the conference, ICTR-PHE (International Conference on Translational Research in Radio-

31

Oncology and Physics for Health in Europe) held on February 2012 in Geneva. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/855.pdf [93] D. Crosetto met CERN Director General and handed him the references to the schematics proving that his electronics built in 2003 was hundreds of times more accurate than CERN-OPERA electronics built in 2008 and advertized on CERN Bulletin as with “outstanding accuracy”. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/700.pdf [94] G. Mastropaolo explanation in the square of Cumiana (Italy) of Crosetto’s innovative concept with the analogy of bottling water. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/856.pdf [95] E. Franco: claims about the methodology to follow to identify projects with highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/857.pdf [96] O. Brawley, explanation why American Cancer Society cannot fund projects with highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/858.pdf [97] Report and video about the conference, dialogue and round table at the Center for Bioethics in Turin on October 17, 2012 http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/859.pdf [98] Video of Crosetto’s seminar at the Dallas Goethe Center. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/860.pdf [99] Video of Crosetto’s seminar at the DeSoto City Council Chambers. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/861.pdf [100] Video of Crosetto’s seminar in English at a web-meeting with several groups in different continents connected via Google Hangout http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/862.pdf [101] Video of Crosetto’s seminar in Italian at a web-meeting with several groups in different continents connected via Google Hangout http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/863.pdf [102] Video of Crosetto’s seminar in French in a web-meeting with several groups in different continents connected via Google Hangout http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/864.pdf [103] Cyber attacks at Crosetto Foundations websites and to crowd-funding campaigns. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/865.pdf [104] D. Crosetto: “Are Scientists Responsible for the Deaths of Millions Who Could Have Been Saved With an Effective Early Cancer Detection?” One page article submitted to IEEE Life Sciences Grand Challenges Conference, Dec. 2-3, Singapore. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/802.pdf [105] D. Crosetto: “Are Scientists Responsible for the Deaths of Millions Who Could Have Been Saved With an Effective Early Cancer Detection?” Poster submitted to IEEE Life Sciences Grand Challenges Conference, Dec. 2-3, Singapore. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/803.pdf [106] Positive feedback from Crosetto’s poster presentation at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/866.pdf [107] Editorial staff of the newspaper “magaze”: “Il contributo dei giovani stefanesi al Congresso Mondiale sulla Scienza: 5 domande per chiedere trasparenza sulla Ricerca” Friday, October 25, 2013. http://www.magaze.it/wps/2013/10/25/il-contributo-dei-giovanistefanesi-al-congresso-mondiale-sulla-scienza-5-domande-chiederetrasparenza-nella-ricerca/ - Translation: “The contribution of the youth from St. Stefano at the World Conference on Science: 5 requests regarding transparency in research” http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/868.pdf [108] D. Crosetto: “Breaking the Speed Barrier in Real-Time Applications to Make Advances in Particle Detection, Medical Imaging and Astrophysics.” Poster presentation R05-52 at 2013 IEEE-NSS-MICRTSD conference http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/801.pdf [109] Craig Levin agreed to help to organize a forum/workshop at the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference on finding the best way to connect the technology with the final goal: e.g. a) discovering new particles at the lowest possible cost of the experiment, b) achieving the highest impact in reducing cancer deaths and cost. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/869.pdf [110] D. Crosetto found agreements with several leaders to continue with the email exchange started on September 23, 2013 to implement an open, transparent dialogue on what is significant to publish on Wikipedia the history of PET and what is its most important role to reduce cancer deaths and cost. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/870.pdf

[111] Link where will be posted 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD General Chairman answers to the five questions asked by several cancer patients, signatories of a petition, and from the group: “One hand for..” http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/871.pdf [112] J. People: Letter appreciating and supporting Crosetto’s research work and inventions. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/174.pdf [113] J. Butler: Letter appreciating and supporting Crosetto’s research work and inventions. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/440.pdf [114] P. Innocenti: Letter appreciating and supporting Crosetto’s research work and inventions. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/179.pdf [115] P. Bartholdi: Letter appreciating and supporting Crosetto’s research work and inventions. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/146.pdf [116] D. Scannicchio: Letter appreciating and supporting Crosetto’s research work and inventions. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/400.pdf [117] Website comparing PET/CT from GE, Siemens and Philips http://www.itnonline.com/comparisoncharts?t=PET+%26%2347%3B+CT+Systems [118] C. Levine et al. articles http://miil.stanford.edu/publications/all.html) [119] Philips Gemini LXL, PET/CT http://www.medwow.com/med/petct/philips/gemini-lxl/55453.model-spec [120] Siemens Biograph TruePoint, PET/CT http://www.activexray.com/pdf/Siemens_Biograph.pdf [121] GE Discovery 710, PET/CT http://www3.gehealthcare.com/en/Products/Categories/PET-CT/PETCT_Scanners/Discovery_PET-CT_710 [122] C. Levin: http://miil.stanford.edu/publications/files/14_PUB.pdf [123] C. Joram, spokesman for the CERN Axial-PET collaboration (See https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AXIALPET/) [124] A. Braem et al. “AX-PET A Novel PET Detector Concept with Full 3D Reconstruction” https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/pub/AXIALPET/PetDoc/AX-PET_NDIP08_V1R0.pdf [125] D. Crosetto: Comparisons between the 3D-CBS and Axial-PET. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/21.pdf [126] C. Levin: “Promising New Photon Detection Concept for High Resolution Clinical and Preclinical PET. http://miil.stanford.edu/publications/files/196_PUB.pdf [127] How the best chemotherapy drugs, Avastin, is shrinking tumors http://www.unitedtoendcancer.org/doc/364.pdf [128] S. Dasu: seminar on January 9, 2013 on what is confirmed, what is not confirmed and the year and effort it will take to confirm the Higgs boson, http://www.hep.wisc.edu/~dasu/public/Dasu-H2TauSeminar.pdf [129] Design of the trigger upgrade for CMS https://cds.cern.ch/record/1556311/files/CMS-TDR-012.pdf [130] A. von Eschenbach: NCI Director's Challenge. In 2003, Andrew von Eschenbach, the director of the National Cancer Institute issued a challenge "to eliminate the suffering and death from cancer, and to do so by 2015". This was supported by the American Association for Cancer Research in 2005. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/872.pdf [131] American Cancer Society and NIH-National Cancer Institute. Facts & Figures on cancer. The cost of cancer treatment 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 http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/329.pdf [132] D. Crosetto: Cancer research projects comparison table (Details about 124,000 cancer projects funded for $37 billion): http://www.crosettofoundation.com/table.php?lang=en (See the presentation of the table at: http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/391.pdf [133] D. Crosetto has placed cancer patient interest before his gain. http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/414.pdf

32