2021-09-21, Letter to the journalists who are serving the interest of the public: Blog: https://bit.ly/3zzJpYC

2021-09-19, Letter to Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal Anne of Edinburgh: Blog: https://bit.ly/3zq7zVe

2021-09-19, Response to Adriana Tavares, Chair 2021 Total-Body PET, Edinburgh: Blog: https://bit.ly/3zqaMV4

2021-09-16, Letter to the presenters and organizers of the TBPET Conference: Blog: https://bit.ly/3AwJj5z

Subject: Logic & Facts – Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal Anne and Prof. Ikuo Kanno: Why Suppressing Science? Why silencing the analysis of what works best in reducing suffering, deaths and costs of cancer?

Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal Anne and Prof. Ikuo Kanno,

Please read the report about the suffering and pain of the person dear to me (https://bit.ly/3Aks5bd; blog: https://bit.ly/3AwJj5z) like millions of other people who suffer because they discovered tumors at stage 3 or 4.

Leaders of IEEE, the world’s largest organization of over 420,000 professionals dedicated to advancing science and technology, in particular Prof. Ikuo Kanno, General Chair of the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference 16 – 23 October 2021 please read the Section 13 at page 27 addressing more specific technical-scientific issues.

This year, the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference is organized by Japanese people who have a tradition of understanding, acknowledging and respecting technology and science (the laws of nature), without misleading or deceiving the public by hiding, suppressing evidence of calculations, data, facts and logical reasoning that unveil the scientific truth.

This year, like during the previous 20 years my papers have been rejected with motivations that are and have been proven from experimental results achieve later, to be illogical, non-scientific, harming humanity in preventing from receiving benefits from innovations, or have been rejected with a score with no scientific motivations.

500 years ago, the scientific community suppressed for 100 years with a score without providing legitimate, logical, scientific reasons, Galileo’s book (https://bit.ly/3zlnuUX) reporting correct calculations and the scientific truth.

I respectfully request Ikuo Kanno to allow me to present my five papers (https://bit.ly/3hCdGPw), to include my articles relative to each of the five abstracts in the proceeding of the Conference and let colleagues from the scientific community express their disagreements providing their calculations and scientific reason instead of a “score” or a suppression.

Our disagreements should then be resolved with an experiment that is the judge in science and not the authoritarian position of an influential individual.

So far, my calculations and claims that my 3D-CBS invention with a PET with long FOV would detect clusters with 100 cancer cells has been proven correct after 19 years and my calculations and claims of my book and papers that the 3D-CBS with approximately 90,000 cm³ of low cost BGO crystals, 150 cm FOV detector (or equivalent with 7g/cm³ density) when used for screening at $200/test, together with the TB-CAD (Total Body Computer-Aided Diagnosis) will also prove to be correct to save millions of lives and trillions of dollars.

However, why is the scientific community suppressing my calculations, logical reasoning, scientific evidence my presentations and discussion in a public forum that is delaying the benefits to humanity?

1.    Logic & Facts

Without being expert in the field, just by using the logic everyone uses to cross the street, using an umbrella preventing from getting wet in the rain, or pressing the break instead of the accelerator when the car in front is slowing down, would one’s logic consider advantageous a device (3D-CBS) capable of detecting through repetitive, safe, low-cost tests, the increasing activity of an anomalous clusters with 100 cancer body cells (small curable tumor) rather than a device (ultrasound, CT scan, MRI, etc.) that can only detect the size of anomalous masses with millions of cells (millimeters) or one billion cells (one centimeter) without knowing if it active (a large growing tumor) or inactive (benign cyst) tissue?

Are influential scientists selling science with advertisements rather than doing their job, that is: allowing anyone to present calculations and scientific evidence and counter them with their calculations?

Not only they have done this for 21 years suppressing my 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) invention described in my book of the year 2000 (goo.gl/ggGGwF) that can detect the activity of fewer than 100 cancerous body cells, and now that they have measured on less efficient copies of my 3D-CBS invention that can detect 100 cancer cells at $10,000/test, they continue to suppress my invention that can do it more efficiently at $200/test.

Not only do influential scientists have no arguments to invalidate my calculations, but they continue to persuade the world with publicity and hype rather than with calculations and results in a significant reduction in cancer deaths and costs.

They convince the world that they should get beautiful images from Positron Emission Tomography (PET) technology instead of the minimum abnormal biological activity in the body.

2.    Misconception: PET is not measuring spatial resolution

Influential scientists and PET manufacturers continue to sell the misconception that a PET is measuring a dimension instead of counting signals per second from the tumor marker. It is like measuring the consumption of water per minute, hours, day by taking a nice picture of the water. The logic of a middle school student can understand that the flow of the water is not measured by taking a nice picture of the water but by designing and building a water meter that is providing a number indicating liters/minute.

For 20 years I gave over 100 Power Point public presentations in English, Italian and French via internet and in person at universities, hospitals, cancer groups, at City Halls of different towns, to University students down to middle school students who understood the two slides of Figure 1 and Figure 2, which I presented also on September 24, 2009 to the Biology Department and the Physics Department at Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Those slides were introduced with the statement: “Restatement of the original definition of Positron Emission Technology (PET): «PET is a non-invasive imaging method used to obtain QUANTITATIVE information about abnormal biological processes in the body. It is important to accurately measure and count, within a given time, the maximum number of signals (pairs of photons) which are related to a physiological function»”. The slides are clearly showing the difference between the tools that are measuring a dimension vs. those measuring a variable within a time unit such as a PET.

To avoid misleading doctors, oncologists and hospitals, for more than two decades I have told PET manufacturers to remove any information about PET spatial resolution in their advertisements of a PET and stress instead the value of sensitivity cps/MBq of their machines (count per second per million Becquerel).

Manufacturers told me that hospital administrators, doctors, oncologists and users were asking for PET spatial resolution. My reply was that they should explain the principle of operation of a PET which is counting the signals from the tumor markers within a time unit and is not measuring a spatial resolution.

Figure 1: Instruments measuring dimension vs. activity              

Figure 2. Quantification of an activity within a time unit

3.    Influential Scientists deceiving high profile individuals, organizations and journalists

Not only influential scientists were able to suppress my 3D-CBS invention of the year 2000 by ignoring it, not citing it in their documents, suppressing my articles, presentations and discussions at the conferences, taking away the microphone (deleting text from the chat window) from me when I asked questions, or when I attempted to analyze data showing what is working and what is not working in significantly reducing cancer deaths and costs, they also convinced Government Officials, high profile individuals and decision makers with advertisements and leveraging on the title and position they are holding as influential scientists instead of showing one calculation against another.

Among the high-profile individuals and organizations the influential scientists were able to convince about their illogical reasoning shielded from the logical reasoning by suppressing transparency and open scientific procedures to make the scientific truth emerge are:

• NIH Government Healthcare Agency in USA (that funded the EXPLORER to scientists who did not know how to build it and gave the money to Chinese to practically build a less efficient, more expensive copy of my 3D-CBS invention);

• Members of the European Parliament who funded projects like the Axial PET (a submillimeter resolution PET detector module for human that was abandoned because of its low sensitivity and high cost), the WPET (a jacket weighing over 350 kg. to be worn for 24 hours for cancer screening) and now

 

• Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal Anne of Edinburgh has been asked to endorse suppressing transparency in science at Her University of Edinburgh.

Apparently, the title, position of responsibility held and authority of the influential scientists also have the effect of intimidating most journalists who are unsure of the logic dictated by their reasoning, and/or lack of courage and fear to publish my statements which reveal the illogicity of influential scientists.

However, I have told them several times that journalists should not take my side or the side of the influential scientists, they should only report the irrefutable facts, data, calculations and scientific evidence I am providing and let the specialists in the field attempt to refute them and journalists should publish both.

 

The result of the experiment will judge who is right and the journalist’s publication will avoid that innovations beneficial to humanity are silenced, suppressed or delayed by influential scientists.  

 

4.    Facts unveil the truth and gain the trust

 

Without the facts the truth cannot emerge and when it does emerge the trust of the public is gained.

What happened on 2021 at the University of Edinburgh for the online Total Body PET conference is nothing compared to what is planned to occur in-person in 2022 at the next Total Body PET Conference at the University of Edinburgh.

In Section xx, I am providing facts and questions that should be asked to the keynote speakers (https://totalbodypet2021.org/keynote-speakers/ and in pdf at: https://bit.ly/2X4YfsU) and invited speakers (https://totalbodypet2021.org/invited-speakers/ and in pdf at: https://bit.ly/3vjxfTr) of the 2022 Total Body PET conference in Edinburgh (***) to protect cancer patients, taxpayers and humanity for continuing to have influential leaders in the field suppressing transparency in science and driving the scientific community in the wrong direction of using PET to measure spatial resolution and provide doctors with nice pictures.

Instead, we should provide a device that “accurately captures all possible valid signals (511 keV pairs of photons or the rare particles in high energy physics experiments) from the tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal capture compared to alternative approaches”.

This is the objective that I have been setting forth and repeating in all my documents and presentations since 1992 with my two inventions 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS, but it has been turned down in favor of building PET with higher spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity.

5.    Was Princess Royal Anne aware of the Suppression of Science at Her University in 2021 and silencing the analysis of what works best in reducing the suffering, deaths and costs of cancer, using the absurd accusation to a person of improper speech and writing that they had silenced from speaking and writing?

Perhaps Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal Anne have not been informed by the Head of Administration of the University of Edinburgh, Mrs. Janet Philp, who acknowledged that she received my email (https://bit.ly/3iNRdRd) asking to explain why your University has suppressed Transparency in Science by preventing me from speaking and then by deleting my abstract that was accepted by the Scientific Committee, preventing me from listening to other presentations and absurdly accusing me of not keeping the standards of conduct expected from conference delegates.

How could I possibly have a non-standard conduct if the University of Edinburgh had 100% control of muting my microphone, deleting my legitimate questions in the online meeting chat window like they did?

By analogy it is like accusing a deaf and dumb man standing before a scientist/entrepreneur at a university entrance, showing a sign that reads “In the name of all deaf and dumb people, I ask you to provide a scientific explanation as to why you are suppressing calculations and scientific evidence showing advances in science in providing us with better hearing aids devices and special devices that convert eye movements into spoken words?” And the scientist/entrepreneur of the University chases the deaf-mute off the premises of the University, preventing him/her from showing his/her sign and accusing him/her of “not keeping with the standards of conduct expected from the people on the premises of his University”.

 

Who is violating the standard of conduct expected from the people on the premises of the University (or at an online conference)? (Also detailed at: https://www.ed.ac.uk/science-engineering/research/research-ethics)

1. The scientist/entrepreneur of the University or
2. The legitimate question by the deaf and dumb

• At 5,000 miles away from Edinburgh I was muted like the other 200 conference participants, therefore I was like a dumb?

• No one from the Edinburgh event addressed orally at the conference why they considered the content of my book to be an advertisement that needed to be delete, instead of realizing that it is a scientific truth, a life-saving invention that could already have saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars. Therefore, I was placed in the condition to be deaf to their message that were never pronounced.

• My legitimate questions submitted in the chat window and the link to my book which reports calculations and scientific evidence that my 3D-CBS invention can still prove to provide more benefits in terms of lives and money saved than any alternative approach, is a suppression for 21 years of the scientific truth as the scientific truth of Galileo’s book (https://bit.ly/3zlnuUX) was suppressed for 100 years with the calculation that the earth was not at the center of the Universe.

6.    On behalf of cancer patients, I ask Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal Anne to request the organizers of the 2021 Total Body PET Conference (TBPET) at Her University of Edinburgh to remove the suppression of my inventions and allow me to discuss with Keynote Speakers and Invited Speakers at the Edinburgh TBPET 2022 in a public forum our different views on reducing suffering, deaths and cost of cancer

On behalf of taxpayers and cancer patients we are serving, I respectfully ask Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal Anne:

1. to restore title No. 3 “Multi-3D-CBS whole-body screening tests: a revolutionary invention making diagnosis based on CAD trends calculated on anomalies in biological processes, rather than on a single examination, for saving millions of lives and trillions of dollars” which has been deleted from page 4 (https://bit.ly/2WyJE8P, https://bit.ly/2Yo0BUl) with an illegitimate pretext, as my title was approved and included in the public document (https://ly/3EIlhqr) of the Total Body PET Conference Program.

2. to restore in the book of abstracts as it appeared for one day before the conference (https://bit.ly/3EIlhqr), my abstract (https://bit.ly/3nGSsom) which has been approved by the Scientific Committee of the Total Body PET Conference but was illegitimately removed.

3. to provide Transparency in Science to taxpayers and cancer patients by posting on the University of Edinburgh website and disseminating all presentations and documents relating to the 2021 Total Body PET Conference, including the dialogues to make emerge the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity which are reported at the links (https://bit.ly/3Aks5bd, https://ly/3EsJfGh, https://bit.ly/3zzJpYC, https://bit.ly/2Zd1oaW and this document also available at https://bit.ly/2X4XVuc.

4. to report my comments and ask the keynote speakers, the invited speakers and the organizers of the 2022 in-person Total-Body PET Conference at the University of Edinburgh the questions reported in Section XX, which are also available in PDF at: https://bit.ly/2X4XVuc and Blog at: https://bit.ly/3DClmdU

5. to allow me to discuss with Keynote Speakers and Invited Speakers at the 2022 Total Body PET Conference at the University of Edinburgh in a public forum our different views on reducing suffering, deaths and cost of cancer

By analyzing the questions and text I wrote in the chat window that are reported in the Appendix, it becomes clear that deleting my abstract and its title from the online program and blocking me from the online conference was a pretext to once again suppress their benefits to taxpayers and cancer patients.

7.    My two important questions that may have caused being blocked from the TBPET conference to avoid addressing what works and what doesn’t work in reducing the suffering, deaths and costs of cancer

Following are the two important legitimate questions I asked on behalf of cancer patients that might be the reasons why the organizers silenced me to silence the scientific truth and suppress the dialogue that would make emerge what works and what doesn’t work in reducing the suffering, deaths and costs of cancer.

The dialogue would have made emerge the wrong direction that continues to suppress the benefits to taxpayers and cancer patients in preventing their benefits in lives and money saved in the future for more profit in the cancer business.

1. My question to Suleman Surti: “What are the reasons why you did not use more economical BGO 30 mm thick crystals instead of 19 mm thick expensive LYSO crystals that have a lower stopping power, meaning less efficient, lower sensitivity?”

Answer from Suleman Surti also available in the video at https://youtu.be/KfkYWZFBuzY.

“My comment is that 30 mm BGO compared to 19 mm LYSO it gives higher stopping power, but the advantage of cost advantage of the BGO goes down even if is cheaper than LSO because you decrease the crystal volume by a factor of two or a factor of two third. The other is that a higher sensitivity it comes with a cost because the BGO has lower resolution which affects the number of scattered events and the data. Even if you collect more true points the scatter factor increases quite dramatically so the challenges of reconstructing the data quantitatively are enhanced. So it is something to keep in mind, where BGO despite higher intrinsic sensitivity may not lead to better NEC types of count because you have more scatter events.”

Facts check: FALSE

My reply to Suleman Surti that I provide only here because my microphone was muted and I could not provide it at the online event: “…the advantage of cost advantage of the BGO goes down even if is cheaper than LSO because you decrease the crystal volume by a factor of two or a factor of two third” is False because LSO cost now 4 to 5 times the BGO, Lutetium is limited in nature. When the demand of LSO will increase to build more PET with long FOV, LSO price will increase to more than 10 times the BGO and at some point it will not be available, therefore basing a long FOV PET design on LSO, LYSO, LBO or any crystal having Lutetium will not allow to build many units to screen for early detection many people, although at an exorbitant price.

“…BGO despite higher intrinsic sensitivity may not lead to better NEC types of count because you have more scatter events” is False because scatter events occur in the patient’s body independently from the type of crystal surrounding the body (see Figure 3)

 

Figure 3. slide from Siemens explaining Scatter Events (top right)

 

For example, observing rain drops falling into a bucket does not change the number of drops collected by the bucket whether the phenomenon is observed with one pair of glasses or another. To efficiently detect scatter events that lost energy when interacted with matter it is necessary to make an accurate measurement of the energy of the 511 keV photon. My measurement summing 3 x 3 or 5 x 5 energy of the sensors centered on the crystal that received the highest hit described at pp. 107, 114-116 of my book (goo.gl/ggGGwF) provides a more accurate energy measurement of the incident photon in the BGO detector than your sum of 2 x 2 energy of sensors that are not centered on the highest hit of the incident photon in the LYSO detector.

2. My question to Maurizio Conti and Bernard Bendriem from Siemens. “After I solved the inefficiency problem on Siemens’ PET devices during our 2002 meeting with President of Siemens Nuclear Medicine, Michael Reitermann, Siemens PET group Director Vilim Simcic, with John Engdahl, head of advanced research, and Fred Macciocchi, Director of the electronic group at Siemens (that was recorded with the consent of the participants)

and they were forced to retract publicly on their website their incorrect statements that it was not possible to increase the efficiency of their PET devices by improving the electronics. After solving their inefficiency problem in 2002, Siemens could have assembled side-by-side four Siemens 23.4 cm FOV PET966 EXACT3D using BGO crystal detectors.

Then by implementing my 3D-CBS device, they could have provided the advantage of a more efficient $200 per screening test cost using the BGO crystals instead of the LSO crystals used in the Vision Quadra. Why you came up 19 years later with a device less efficient and more costly than the 3D-CBS. Why are not building the 3D-CBS with 150 cm FOV using BGO?

As it turned out I was right in 2002 after our meeting, would you be willing to discuss this issue and giving me the opportunity that also this time I can show to be right and provide advantages in increasing efficiency and lowering costs?”

Answer from Maurizio Conti: “answering comments/questions by Dario Crosetto: I cannot comment on previous meetings with Siemens, I was not involved in that conversation; I fully acknowledge that there is merit in your proposal to use BGO in PET today, particularly for Total Body PET, and other industries are now building BGO scanners, but Siemens is more focused on TOF performance; it might not be the best solution, but time will tell which approach is more successful”;

Comment from Maurizio Conti: scientific conferences like this are the best arena to compare and discuss new architectures, so thanks for bringing this up!

My first reply/comment to Maurizio Conti: “Answering to Maurizio Conti. Thank you for expressing your opinion. I can imagine that you are convinced of your statement as the President of Nuclear Medicine Michael Reitermann and the other leader were convinced of theirs, I am asking the opportunity of one day meeting (or a few hours), that i would prefer public, but i can also accept in a smaller group with leaders at Siemens. Please let me know if you are open to this dialogue. Thank you, Regards, Dario

My second reply/comment to Maurizio Conti: “Comment to Maurizio Conti: your statement “it might not be the best solution, but time will tell which approach is more successful” may not be fair to taxpayers and cancer patients knowing that millions of lives could have been saved with my 3D-CBS with BGO during the past 20 years that you have used LSO. If you disagree the best is to build it and test it on a sample population. A discussion to resolve technical issues in one day would be preferred than waiting 20 years.”

The other legitimate questions and very pertinent information contributing to advance science and significantly reduce cancer deaths and costs were deleted by the organizers of the Total Body PET conference.

If the organizers believed that any information that I posted were not contributing to advance science and significantly reduce cancer deaths and costs, they should have expressed their arguments supported by calculations and scientific evidence instead of suppressing the advancement of science for the benefit of humanity.

The screenshots of the chat window showing my questions and information posted and then deleted are available at: https://bit.ly/3FGYVq6 and its corresponding text to facilitate reading is available at: https://bit.ly/3aqcDiC.

At the end of the first day on September 22^nd, 2021, of the Total Body PET Conference, on my computer screen popped up the message that I was blocked from viewing the presentations of the next two days of the conference with the illegitimate accusation send via email on September 22^nd, 2021, stating as follows: From: TBPET Conference <TBPET2020@ed.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:43 PM
To: crosettodario@gmail.com
Subject: Total-Body PET 2021 conference

Dear Dario Crosseto,

Your conduct at the Total-body PET Conference today was not in keeping with the standards of conduct expected from conference delegates, and after consideration, we have taken the decision to remove your access for the remainder of the Conference and to remove the Poster Presentation. We will arrange to refund the Conference fee in full.

Please note that neither the Conference organisers nor The University of Edinburgh will be corresponding further with you on this matter.

Regards

The Total-Body PET 2021/2022 Conference Organisers

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

Figure 4. screenshot of the illegitimate accusations and suppression of scientific, pertinent questions/comments

8.    Why all this fury for 21 years to suppress my innovations beneficial to all of us, even to those who are suppressing them?

Why all this fury in suppressing my book (goo.gl/ggGGwF) and articles using the excuse that is advertisement and now deleting/suppressing my abstract and even its title “Multi-3D-CBS whole-body screening tests: a revolutionary invention making diagnosis based on CAD trends calculated on anomalies in biological processes, rather than on a single examination, for saving millions of lives and trillions of dollars” with the absurd accusation that “I was not keeping with the standards of conduct” which is impossible because they had the control of muting me and deleting my messages with no legitimate reason as they did?

Is it because I am providing irrefutable solutions to significantly reduce cancer deaths and costs through a cost-effective, safe early cancer detection combined with a Total-Body Computer-Aided Diagnosis (TB-CAD) and all these people suppressing my innovations do not want this? Or simply for other reasons such as the following:

1. Because there is a confusion between advertisement and scientific claims?

2. Because of business interest in promoting LSO crystals or other products/markets?

3. Because of jealousy and wanting to be the first in getting recognition?

4. Because of plagiarism?

5. Because of desire to gain power to control the direction of research in a specific field?

6. Because influential scientists drive from the back seat, placing young researchers at the wheel, telling them which project approve/reject, which message on the chat window of an online conference to delete without teaching them the difference between advertisement and scientific claims that need to be countered with calculations and scientific evidence?

7. Because so far journalists reaching a large audience are intimidated by the title of influential scientists, are unsure of the logic dictated by their reasoning and/or lack of courage and fear to publish my statements which reveal the illogicity of influential scientists, while a few journalists reaching a small audience had this courage, but it was not enough to reach the public

8. Because of misconceptions?

9. Because of incompetence?

10. Because Government representatives handling taxpayer money do not include in their strategic plans to beat cancer a test on a sample population that will show a significant reduction in cancer deaths and costs in a location where the plan is implemented compared to data in the same location the previous years and compared to a location where the strategic plan is not implemented.

11. Because Government representatives and Cancer Research Associations handling taxpayer and donation money do not make accountable researchers before assigning grant money by requesting a plan to test the efficacy of their research in reducing cancer deaths and costs on a sample population that will show a significant reduction in cancer deaths and costs in a location where the plan is implemented compared to data in the same location the previous years and compared to a location where their research project (combined with other) is not implemented

12. Because of suppressing the dialogue in a public forum addressing all the above issues

Or my inventions have been and are suppressed because of a concomitance of many of the above?

 

We should instead work together, address all the above in a public forum and if I have the expertise in particle detection and in building instrumentation capable to accurately capture all possible valid signals from the tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured, it is in the interest of everyone to provide me the means and funding to transform my innovations in the most cost-effective tool for early cancer detection to save millions of lives and trillions of dollars before I die so that this generation and future generations can enjoy the benefits.

9.    Her Royal Highness, the Princess Royal, apparently at your University there is a confusion between publicity/hype and scientific claims

500 years after Galileo the suppression of the scientific truth is still practiced? 100 year for his book, 21 years for my book.

Galileo claim that the earth was not at the center of the Universe was supported by calculations that proved to be correct. Would the University of Edinburgh and the organizers of the Total Body PET Conference, have suppressed Galileo’s book on the grounds that it was “advertisement”?

My calculations and claims in my book (goo.gl/ggGGwF) are proven to be correct year after year.

1. After 19 years, third parties proved that my calculations and claims to be able to detect clusters with 100 cancerous cells was correct.

2. My claim to improve PET efficiency by improving the electronics has been proven correct (meeting with Siemens in 2002),

3. The advantage of using BGO instead of LSO crystals has proven correct now after 21 years of denial.

4. My claim that we need to focus in accurately capturing all possible valid signals from the tumor makers at the lowest cost per valid signal capture rather than improving PET spatial resolution is proven correct.

5. My claim that my 3D-CBS design with a technology-independent 3D-Flow system and the synergy among all components is still proving to be competitive in higher efficiency and lower cost for the device and examination compared to any alternative approach is still valid.

6. The calculated cost of the $200 screening test with the 3D-CBS (in pdf at: https://bit.ly/2NvM57i or website https://crosettofoundation.org/lives-saved/) that no one has refuted, is an enormous advantage compared to the current less efficient $10,000 exam on the EXPLORER

7. My estimated 260 lives saved per year per 3D-CBS device, reducing over 80 times the cost per life saved with the potential to save over 100 million lives and over $27 trillion in 30 years has not been refuted it has just been suppressed by the organizers of the Total Body PET without providing any scientific argument or logical reason.

It is a big responsibility to suppress claims showing scientific advances and benefits to humanity without being able to refute them with scientific arguments. This responsibility becomes even grater when measured results proves the claim made years before with calculation was correct. The person who suppressed the information should be held responsible for the losses caused by suppressing valuable scientific information?

In science an author’s claim that has not been refuted should be repeated over and over, disseminate to the world to accelerate the time that someone would prove it wrong with calculations and the author could not defend his/her claims in a live debate, or it should raise the interest of the decision makers who are spending taxpayer and donation money to achieve fewer results at a higher price so they will fund an experimental test to verify the author’s claim.

The spirit and ethic of a scientists should not suppress the idea of a colleague and try to convince the world by advertising his/her idea. Instead, he/she should request funding to build his idea and support the funding request of his colleague’s idea so that the results will show as soon as possible who was right in providing more benefits at a lower cost.

This is what I have done in June 2020 at page 126 of my article http://bit.ly/2QdgdTx by asking publicly to fund Simon Cherry and Ramsey Badawi EXPLORER research study with $42 million to test the efficacy of their EXPLORER on a sample population of 60,000 people in one year and fund with $19.6 million to perform the same test on 60,000 people using my 3D-CBS as described at page 114 of the same document. The $22.4 million difference will be sufficient to build three 3D-CBS units and save more lives and money thereafter.

Isn’t this the logic every scientist should use to resolve disagreements between scientists, which is leaving the judgement to the result of the experiment?

The public who believes in science and the honesty of scientists expects that they resolve their disagreements with calculations and logical reasoning and when this does not happen and some disagreement persist, both should agree in being judged by the result of an experiment. It is unconceivable and unethical that one scientist tries to win the case with hypes and advertisements, by suppressing the scientific arguments of his/her colleague and refuses to measure efficacy of his/her project/idea on a sample population.

The laws of nature (science) at the end wins and it is what happened in 2000 when the guru on crystals Steve DeRenzo from Berkley, appointed by senior scientist Terry Jones to review my 2000 book (goo.gl/ggGGwF) stated that there was no problem in the PET electronics and in his opinion crystals should be improved to increase PET efficiency. He was proven wrong years after from experimental results from many people. If my calculations and claims would have been addressed in a public forum instead of being suppressed at IEEE-NSS-MIC Conferences, much of suffering, deaths and high costs would have been avoided.

In 2002 using the logic in addressing my calculations, approach and design made Siemens realize they were wrong in believing that PET efficiency could not be improved by improving the electronics.

After asking manufacturers for twenty years to remove spatial resolution feature from the advertisement of their PET and teach doctors, oncologists, hospital administrators that they should focus on cps/MBq PET sensitivity, for the first time I see only this feature advertised in the 1 minute 55 second GE video advertisement of their PET devices at this TBPET conference. If my calculations and claims would have been addressed in a public forum instead of being suppressed at IEEE-NSS-MIC Conferences, much of suffering, deaths and high costs would have been avoided.

After detailing in my book of the year 2000 a PET with 150 cm FOV, using 90,000 cm³, BGO crystals and being suppressed to discuss in a public scientific forum the advantages compare to the PET with LSO crystals for 20 years, now the scientific community realize that BGO (or economical crystals with equivalent stopping power) are best for PET with long FOV as also state in Maurizio Conti answer to my question in this TBPET conference who stated: “I fully acknowledge that there is merit in your proposal to use BGO in PET today, particularly for Total Body PET”. If my calculations and claims would have been addressed in a public forum instead of being suppressed at IEEE-NSS-MIC Conferences, much of suffering, deaths and high costs would have been avoided.

For more than five years, senior scientist Paul Lecoq advertise at the IEEE-NSS-MIC Conferences and in all possible occasions his “Challenge of achieving 10 picosecond electronics for Time -Of-Flight PET” that he created and the organizers of several conference have given awards and prices to push this direction of research.

If I would be allowed to discuss this issue in a public forum and counter the arguments of Paul Lecoq and his supporters on this Challenge, I am confident that the logic would make everyone realize that his Challenge is not providing benefits in reducing cancer deaths and costs but is a burden to society. However, if disagreements would persist at the forum, it would be important Paul Lecoq would prepare a detailed project for implementation as I did with my 3D-Flow, 3D-CBS and TB-CAD, and its efficacy being tested on a sample population as I have proposed.

I would then support the funding of his project to be build as soon as possible so he would learn from the results of the experiment his mistakes in his calculations and claims. For sure it would be best to understand the laws of nature using logic, calculations and scientific reasoning in a public forum, however, if this is not possible, taxpayers and society will have a smaller loss by paying the experiment to Paul Lecoq so he will stop dragging many scientists for years in the wrong direction of research, costing much more time and money to society.

Likewise, if the scientific community and the organizers of this Total Body Pet Conference would allow discussion and comparison of different architectures, calculations and claims as also stated by Maurizio Conti in his answer to my question: “…scientific conferences like this are the best arena to compare and discuss new architectures, so thanks for bringing this up!” instead of the organizers of the TBPET conference: “…decision to remove your access for the remainder of the Conference and to remove the Poster Presentation”, humanity could receive benefits from innovations otherwise suppressed.

Maurizio Conti’s answer to my question states: “I fully acknowledge that there is merit in your proposal to use BGO in PET today, particularly for Total Body PET, and other industries are now building BGO scanners, but Siemens is more focused on TOF performance; it might not be the best solution, but time will tell which approach is more successful”.

Using the logic, a discussion in a public forum, would have made emerge what is intended with the word “more successful”. Is “focusing on TOF performance more successful in saving lives and reducing healthcare cost?”

A logical analysis of the parameters of the TOF PET device from Siemens with determine the answer to be NO!”

Any disagreement on this can be verified with the experimental test measuring the efficacy of different PET approaches (GE – BGO, GE – LSO, Siemens – LSO-TOF, Philips – LYSO, UI EXPLORER – LYSO, PEN – EXPLORER – LYSO, 3D-CBS – BGO) which I have proposed at the bottom page 2 of the article I published on May 1^st, 2019, on the daily newspaper Focus Daily News serving the suburban Dallas (see http://bit.ly/2vvBMDW). I distributed hundreds of copies of this article at CERN and at the 2019 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Manchester, UK.

Conti’s Challenge “…time will tell which approach is more successful” needs a discussion in a public forum if more successful means serving the cancer business by limiting the use of this device to show response to drugs and research or serving the public as the 3D-CBS in significantly reducing cancer deaths and costs and at the same time providing a powerful tool for research including the development of new drugs.

A.     Hype and advertisement should not be the practice in science. Instead, it seems that is the practice at the University of Edinburgh.

On August 1^st, 2021, I received an email from the University of Edinburgh with the subject line: “PET is Wonderful 2021 – Abstract call & VIP PET prize call EXTENDED” (https://bit.ly/3aCOx46)

Dear PET enthusiasts, We have extended the calls for abstracts and VIP PET Prize. New submission deadline: 29^th August 2021. As in previous years, we will keep supporting one Very Important Project (VIP) PET prize. For further information on this prize, please check T&Cs on meeting webpage or contact meeting organisers at: PiWTeam@ed.ac.uk. More details at: https://petiswonderful.org/pet-is-wonderful-2021/. This meeting will be online and free to everyone. Keynote speaker: Dr Tim McCarthy, Pfizer USA. Keynote presentation title: “The application of clinical technologies in biopharmaceutical development: from imaging to wearables.” We hope to e-meet you in October, PET is Wonderful Meeting Organizers.

The hype/publicity email was so effective that it sounded almost like Pfizer was giving million dollars prize to the project that had a higher impact in saving lives using PET as we read many claims they are saving lives with the Covid-19 vaccine.

One would think the University of Edinburgh would have the most Wonderful PET device, even better than the Siemens Biograph Vision Quadra, the uEXPLORER, the PENN EXPLORER… I then read the two pages specification of the rules and prize (https://bit.ly/3AzNDzT). It was mentioning “The VIP PET prize includes support towards a pilot preclinical PET project, specifically, a maximum of six hours of PET/CT scanning and supply of PET radiotracer, subject to local and feasible production… providing the list of 11 radioisotopes, but no word of this mysterious Wonderful PET. I then wrote an email asking the make and model of the PET/CT they will provide, and I received the following answer (see last page of https://bit.ly/3aCOx46):

The PET/CT was Mediso nanoScan PET122S / CT1512. Gantry opening  16 cm, Transaxial FOV 12 cm, Axial FOV 10 cm

With all due respect for Mediso nanoScan, I think that it would have been more appropriate for the University of Edinburgh’s “PET is Wonderful Meeting Organizers” to state they had a PET/CT for small animal available for research study on small animals.

It would be like someone making the world believe that could win a prize delivered by Jeff Bezos for a ride on the Blue Origin into space or a prize delivered by Elon Musk to have a ride on a prototype of a $200,000 Tesla Roadster and instead they could only have a ride on my three-cylinder Mitsubishi. Which is a fine car, but it doesn’t worth to pay $1,500 air ticket and lodging to go to the ceremony to take the prize to have a ride on my three cylinder Mitsubishi.

I am sure that anyone can find a University hospital closer to where they live offering a free ride for six hours examination time on their PET/CT for the study that a student need for his/her thesis on a machine equivalent or better than a PET/CT with a Transaxial FOV 12 cm, Axial FOV 10 cm. Likewise anyone can find a ride near to where they live on a car similar to my three-cylinder Mistubishi.

10.                     Brief History of PET

Following I provide a brief history of PET and how influential scientists drove and continued to drove the research in a direction that is not maximizing caner deaths and cost reduction. A more detail history can be found in Chapter III, IV and V, from page 6 to page 26 of the article (http://bit.ly/2QdgdTx).

1. 1951: The use in medicine of coincidence detection of two 511 keV pairs of photons generated from the annihilation of positron-electron were published independently in 1951 by Wrenn, Good and Handler from Duke University, who suggested the use of coincidence detection, and William Sweet from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), who reported results on positron imaging on brain tumor localization in which he included an addendum after his discussion in early 1950 with Gordon Brownell, who gave him several suggestions on how to improve the quality of nuclear images for the detection of brain tumors and other brain diseases.

2. The key basic area of improvement of PET (Positron Emission Tomography) is to improve particle detection being able to accurately capture all possible 511 keV pairs of photons at the lowest cost per valid pairs of photons captured compared to alternative approaches. This is the field of High Energy Physics (HEP) experiments with the difference that if apparatus to detect particles in HEP experiments are not efficient, they will only delay the discovery of a new particle for more years and it will cost more to taxpayers, while it is much more important to have efficient instrumentation (Medical Imaging Devices) in detecting all possible valid signals from radiation (tumor markers) at the lowest cost per valid signal captured because it will be effective for early detection of anomalies in biological processes of the body, it will reduce the radiation to the patient and it will lower the examination cost.

3. 1992: I invented the 3D-Flow which breaks the speed barrier in real-time applications to cost-effectively find all possible rare objects or events (e.g. Higgs boson particles, tumor markers, a face in a crowd or a bacteria in a fast changing biological process, etc.) through real-time analysis of data sets (object pattern recognition algorithms) arriving at ultra-high speed from many electronic channels. My technology-independent 3D-Flow invention was recognized a breakthrough by academia, industry and research centers in a major public scientific review requested by the Director of the Superconducting Super Collider (also Director of Fermilab) that was held at FERMILAB in 1993 (gl/zP76Tc). My 3D-Flow invention was adopted in 1993 by thousands of scientists of Gamma Electron and Muon (GEM) Collaborations for the half-billion dollars GEM detector at the Superconducting Super Collider and in 1995 by the LHCb Collaboration at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland. Funding for both projects (not just my 3D-Flow project but for the entire SSC and LHCb projects) were stopped by the U.S. Department of Energy for political-economical reasons.

4. 1995: I received grants from U.S. Department of Energy for $1 million for the development of my 3D-Flow invention. I developed all software tools: editor, assembler, simulator, suite to create applications for 3D-Flow system satisfying the requirements for detectors of different size and performance, offering the possibility to verify the functionality from top level C⁺⁺ language to the gate level VHDL language, comparing test vectors results. I ported the 3D-Flow design on three different FPGAs platforms: Altera, Xilinx and ORCA-Lucent Technologies. I hired top consultant from Synopsys to implement the design using 350 nanometer CMOS technology. They created the tape out to send to the silicon foundry to manufacture the ASIC chip to be used in applications. However, funding to pay the silicon foundry was never provide and $50 million went instead to the competing project by Wesley Smith that did not go through a public scientific review; his project was trashed in 2016 because it was found to be ineffective. I reported the development of my 3D-Flow invention in a 45-page peer-review article published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals (gl/bqhD4R).

5. 1998: Michael Phelps, a chemist with no working experience in particle detection, …who tried them all “Priest, boxer, scientist…, Michael Phelps tried them all before settling on the field of medicine…” as reported by the 2003 UCLA Today (see page 10, Figure 5 of http://ly/2QdgdTx), was able to persuade Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) to include a PET exam as part of Health Care Financing Administration’s reimbursement (HCFA) and furthermore, with the help of his friends influential scientists he also persuaded President Bill Clinton to assign him the Enrico Fermi award in 1998 for the invention of PET that was invented by Brownell and others when he was 11 years old. The award states “Phelps, 59, is the inventor of PET (positron emission tomography), a medical imaging technique that allows doctors and scientists to watch human biological processes in health and disease, in essence making human biology transparent. PET scanning…” The following year Gordon Brownell sets the record straight about who invented PET in the 11-page article https://bit.ly/3vcLsRI , however, the damage was done and continued when Michael Phelps used the award as a credential to receive funding from the Government and donors to develop a new market of thousands of PET devices with short FOV that data-history shows it did not reduce significantly cancer deaths and cost in the locations where PET was used. The explanation of the development of this new market was not because of the scientific merits of an invention beneficial to humanity, but mainly because of the friendship between Phelps and Senator Ted Stevens who was instrumental for the approval of the reimbursement of the PET exam. Taxpayers and donors who funded the development did not received a return, by Michael Phelps, his wife and friends did selling this PET business for $1 billion to Siemens in 2005.

6. 2000: I invented the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening), deposited the blueprint book “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening” ISBN 0-9702897-0-7 (gl/ggGGwF),at the U.S. Library of Congress Catalog-in-Publication Data Card Number: 00-191510, and distributed 200 copies free of charge to the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Lyon, France to the leaders in this field including PET manufacturers. The 3D-CBS is a PET with 150 cm FOV, using 90,000 cm³, BGO crystals. The invention was acclaimed.

7. 2001: I was invited to give a seminar at the University of Geneva, physics department which was attended by several scientists from CERN. I then repeated the seminar at the University hospital of Geneva, Switzerland and I displayed the working hardware of the principle of concept of the 3D-Flow architecture implemented in FPGA at the industrial exhibition of the IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in San Diego in California.

8. 2002: My book arose the interest of the largest PET manufacturer Siemens. Its leaders stated they built 31 prototypes of PET and could assure that it was not possible to increase significantly their efficiency by improving the electronics. The President of Siemens Nuclear Medicine, Michael Reitermann (Figure 5) and the PET group Director Vilim Simcic, came to my place on November 6^th, 2002 for a meeting which lasted the entire day. It was followed with other conference calls with John Engdahl, head of advanced research, and Fred Macciocchi, Director of the electronic group at Siemens. My claims in the book were correct, I received their compliments. I solved the inefficiency in their PET allowing them to make the vertical jump for the PET with short FOV as shown by the vertical arrow on the left of Figure 6.

 

Figure 5. President of Siemens Nuclear Medicine, Michael Reitermann pointing out where our disagreements were that according to the experts at Siemens it was not possible to make the jump indicated by the arrow on the left side of Figure 6 by improving the electronics of their PET.

Figure 6. Graph extracted from page 23 of my book (goo.gl/ggGGwF)

Then we spent two and half hours to discuss about the photons lost that I summarized on Figure 14-1 at page 136 of my book (goo.gl/ggGGwF)

Figure 7. John Engdahl head of Siemens advanced research says during our phone conference call that the efficiency of their PET is not limited by the electronics, however, later on their website Siemens states the opposite.

Figure 8. After I solved Siemens, problems of inefficiency on their PET, they retracted on their website all their statements

However, the most striking thing that placed Siemens’ leaders in a real difficulty was my demonstration that they did not need the LSO crystals to improve PET efficiency because as shown in the center of my Figure 14-1 at page 136 of the book (goo.gl/ggGGwF) what is important in PET is the stopping power of the crystal and my innovative electronics, assembly of the detector, the photon detection algorithm and the synergy that I implemented between all components that can extract more information from economical BGO crystals.

They mentioned Andreaco working on a plant to produce LSO crystals. My demonstration that they did not need LSO crystals must have been a real shock for Siemens’ leaders because the company invested millions of dollars to implement the production of LSO crystals.

At this point Siemens’ leaders were aware that “BGO is Back!” in 2002 and we did not have to wait 18 years for Simon Cherry’s statement “BGO is Back!” at the 2020 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD online conference.

After I solved the inefficiency of their PET with short FOV, I have shown with the oblique arrow of Figure 6 that it was possible to increase the efficiency not only by 70% as they did after our meeting, but by 40,000% with my 3D/CBS device with 150 cm FOV and having shown in Figure 14-1 at page 136 of my book that it was possible to reach this efficiency with economical BGO crystals, Siemens’ leaders faced a dilemma: 1) serving the customer with a more efficient and lower cost PET with long FOV with BGO crystals or 2) convincing the world with publicity that the future of PET was with their expensive patented LSO crystals and save their investment in the production of LSO crystals?

The latter was the winner, leaders who spoke with me could not win before Siemens’ marketing team with my technical demonstration that BGO was just fine. I was not offered the opportunity to present the case to the Siemens’ marketing team who wrote me a letter stating that they had a different strategy (no long FOV BGO, but short FOV LSO). I also did not have the opportunity to continue to present the advantages of the BGO with long FOV instead of the LSO at the IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences because I have been boycotted for 20 years. This started the same year in 2002 with Joel Karp, General Chair of the 2002 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference who rejected all my papers.

9. 2003: After proving the concept of my 3D-Flow invention feasible and functional in hardware in two FPGAs Altera chips at the 2001 IEEE-NSS-MIC in San Diego, in 2003 I used my own money to develop two modular boards with 68 x 3D-Flow processors each implemented in FPGA, proving 3D-Flow systems could be built for detectors of any size, executing any complex object pattern recognition real-time algorithms to detect particles or 511 keV pairs of photons in medical imaging applications. I presented the electronic boards at the 2003 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Portland, Oregon (gl/RiIn0B).

The tested functionality of the 64x 3D-Flow processors housed in 16 FPGA chips, each with 4x 3D-Flow processors in the 3D-Flow IBM PC board can be implemented using 2015 40 nm CMOS technology in a 35 mm x 35 mm chip with 64x 3D-Flow processors and a gain of 13 times in speed, 1/10 the power consumption, and 1/200 the cost per 3D-Flow processor. Performance can increase using current 2021 technology. My 3D-Flow invention is technology independent and can migrate any time to the most cost-effective technology. Reviewer incompetent in electronics continue to use the excuse that my 3D-Flow invention is old to reject my articles, presentations and funding without being able to provide a reference to any idea/concept/project offering higher efficiency at lower cost in accurately capture all possible valid signals from a particle detection system.

10. 2005: Again, serving profits wins against serving the public and Michal Phelps’ market of short FOV PET with LSO that did not prove efficacy in significantly reducing cancer deaths and costs was sold for $1 billion to Siemens. The propaganda of high spatial resolution PET with LSO crystals convinced the scientific community, manufacturers and all the influential players in the field.

11. 2010: At the “Physics for Health” workshop at CERN, one of the organizers of the workshop, Sergio Bertolucci who was among the review committee, gave a prize to himself to his submillimeter PET detector module, Axial PET that later was abandoned to be used for PET for human because it was inefficient and high cost. I presented two papers, one cosigned by over 1000 people but they were ignored. The following year I took the time to go to CERN to explain Bertolucci in almost two hours meeting the illogical an inconsistency of focusing on PET spatial resolution since the principle of operation of PET is counting signals received from the tumor marker within a time unit. During the meeting, Bertolucci admitted to be incompetent in the type of detector modules needed for PET, but seven years later he created the ATTRACT Consortium, appropriating millions of taxpayer EUROs from the European Union, self-nominating himself as the top expert in “Detection and Imaging Technology” taking the Chair of the Research and Development and Innovation committee evaluating projects that should receive funding from the European Commission. Among other project, he and his colleagues funded is the WPET project, an overcoat weighing over 350 kg. to be worn for 24 hours for cancer screening.

12. 2015: Several influential scientists (https://bit.ly/3vk81UE) who rejected my presentation and papers at scientific conferences, were able to appropriate millions of dollars of taxpayer money, the largest sum in one grant of $15.5 million in 2015 to build the EXPLORER, a copy of my 3D-CBS invention. Because they did not know how to build it and they trashed most of the electronics built with taxpayer money years before as I was told by William Moses, one member of the EXPLORER PET project, they gave the money to the Chinese company United Imaging Healthcare (UIH) to build it for them. However, they providing UIH the wrong instructions to focus on spatial resolution to the detriment of higher sensitivity and lower cost. In fact, the EXPLORER with 18.1 mm thick expensive LYSO crystals is less efficient at an exorbitant cost compared to the 3D-CBS using 30 mm BGO economical crystals and innovations in the electronics and in the synergy between all the components.

13. 2015: I was asked by my former supervisor Jim Siegrist, now Director of the office of High Energy Physics at the Office of Science at the Department of Energy (DOE), to submit a proposal for funding my inventions. On December 22^nd, 2015, I submitted 271-page formal proposal (gl/w3XlZ1), supported by 59 quotes from 21 different vendors detailed in 155-page document. The proposal layout the details to build a 3D-Flow system for High Energy Physics experiments that provides a powerful, unprecedented tools to physicists for the discovery of new particles saving hundreds of millions of dollars in research and a lifesaving and moneysaving 3D-CBS device for a cost-effective early cancer detection. Using the 2015 technology the component cost of the 3D-CBS was less than $2 million, which together to its high efficiency can provide screening examination tests on the 3D-CBS at $200/test, saving over 260 lives per year per device. Siegrist’s subaltern, Glenn Crawford placed in charge to review my proposal, made untrue statements. I requested a meeting or a clarification and he wrote an 8-line contradicting statement where the following line contradicted the line before. I requested explanations to Jim Siegrist and he sent an enigmatic email to me and the Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz, stating: “I am not authorized to speak for the Secretary’s Office”

14. 2018: I provided the study with the interactive table to calculate costs and efficacy in saving lives from dying prematurely from cancer for different projects claiming to reduce cancer deaths and costs (https://bit.ly/2NvM57i). No one could refute the correctness of the calculation of the table, but was ignored and rejected from publishing with no reasons.

15. Measurements on the less efficient and more expensive copy of my 3D-CBS invention, the EXPLORER PET device with 194 cm FOV confirmed my claim that a PET with a long FOV could detect clusters with 100 cancer cells. The published results of their measurements in the Journal of Nuclear Medicine on March 2019, Vol. 60 – No. 3, pp. 299-303.

16. 2020: I submitted for review the 147-page article (http://ly/2QdgdTx) to the SPIE editorial board for the Journal of Medical Imaging. I corresponded with the Editor in Chief, Maryellen Giger, but to date she did not make a review.

17. 2021: I invented the Total-Body Computer-Aided Diagnosis (TB-CAD) which is not based on data from a single Total-Body PET test as the other AI approaches, but when combined with the advantages of the other two inventions, 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS that can provide accurate data for a total-body test at only $200/test, with very low radiation and at maximum sensitivity (cps/MBq), can analyze trends calculated on anomalies in biological processes from data acquired from the same machine, using the same protocol and the same radiations dose, has the potential to save over 100 million lives and over $27 trillion in 30 years.

I submitted this paper to the 2021 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference and it was suppressed, I submitted to the 2021 Total-Body PET Conference and was accepted, but then it was suppressed with absurd accusations that have no bearing with the scientific merit of my abstract and title that were approved.

18. 2021: After telling PET manufacturers for more than two decades to remove any information about PET spatial resolution in their advertisements of a PET and stress instead the value of sensitivity cps/MBq of their machines (count per second per million Becquerel), finally for the first time I see at the Industry Exhibition of this 2021 Total Body PET Conference 1 minute and 55 second advertisement of all GE PET devices mentioning only the cps/MBq sensitivity of their different PET devices without a single word about PET spatial resolution.

Not only, but I was glad to see finally measurements on real machines confirming my statement that we should focus in sensitivity because a PET with an axial FOV that is twice as long as the short FOV can detect four times the number 511 keV photons in time coincidence. See Figure 9 from my July 30^th, 2001, article provided to the University of Geneva after their invitation to present my innovation on May 16^th, 2001, at their University.

 

Figure 9. Excerpt from page 19, Figure 14 of my article provided to the University of Geneva on July 30^th, 2001, following my presentation on May 16ht, 2001

Figures 10 and 11 show the screenshot of the 1 minute and 55 second advertisement of GE PET devices at the Industry Exhibition of the 2021 Total Body PET Conference mentioning only the cps/MBq sensitivity of their PET devices without a single word during the entire video about PET spatial resolution.

 

Figure 10. Screenshot of the 1 minute and 55 second advertisement of GE PET devices at the Industry Exhibition of the 2021 Total Body PET Conference mentioning only the 7.5 cps/MBq sensitivity of their 15 cm FOV PET devices without a single word about PET spatial resolution.

Figure 11. Screenshot of the 1 minute and 55 second advertisement of GE PET devices at the Industry Exhibition of the 2021 Total Body PET Conference mentioning only the 30 cps/MBq sensitivity of their 30 cm FOV PET devices without a single word about PET spatial resolution.

Finally, this is the focus we should place in developing future PET devices: maximizing the number of valid 511 keV pairs of photons detected that should get close to the square of the detector length increase (see Table 1).

When the length of the detector gets longer than the accepted angle for a point source, the number of valid 511 keV pairs of photons detected will fewer than the theoretical calculation that gets the square of the detector length increase.

Table 1. The number of valid 511 keV pairs of photons detected should get close to the square of the detector length increase (fewer that the square of the detector length increase when the detector gets longer than the accepted angle of the point source).

 

	Field Of View (FOV)	Theoretical value	Practical value
1	15 cm	7.5 cps/MBq	7.5 cps/MBq
2	30 cm	30 cps/MBq	30 cps/MBq
3	60 cm	120 cps/MBq	120 cps/MBq
4	90 cm	270 cps/MBq	??? cps/MBq
5	120 cm	480 cps/MBq	??? cps/MBq
6	150 cm	750 cps/MBq	??? cps/MBq

11.                     Major four PET manufacturers recognize the merit of my invention and slowly abandon their approach going toward my approach but implementations show we still have two different objectives: theirs limited to serve the pharmaceutical companies and research, mine to serve the public in significantly reduce cancer deaths and costs and providing at the same time a more powerful cost-effective tool for research in all fields, including drugs

Since the distribution of 200 copies of my book (goo.gl/ggGGwF) free of charge at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in Lyon, France, I kept contacts with the technical professionals of the main companies manufacturing PET which were three (Siemens, GE and Philips) until the year 2016 and later United Imaging Healthcare from Shanghai, China came into the market.

A recurrent answer for 19 years before the measurements on the copy of my 3D-CBS invention in 2019 proving that a PET with long FOV can detect clusters with 100 cancer cells, was that in the opinion of the marketing group of the PET manufacturers the market was not mature for a PET with a long FOV. However, I had a prompt answer saying that humanity is mature to receive its benefits in lives saved.

Because I receive recurrent questions asking what kind of feedback I received from the major PET manufacturers, I am reporting an update as follows:

1. General Electric, Charles Stearns, Chief Engineer – PET – GE Healthcare and Floris JANSEN Chief Scientist, Molecular Imaging at GE Healthcare

Charles STEARNS Chief Engineer – PET – GE Healthcare

Floris JANSEN Chief Scientist, Molecular Imaging at GE Healthcare

One of the professional with whom I kept regular contacts was Charles Stearns, who I called from time to time and when we had to discuss something on my book, he was telling me, even more than a decade from when I gave him my book, “…wait, let me take your book that I have here on my shelf”. Stearns commented that the figure at page 150-151 in my book, related to the GE patent, well described the GE implementation of the electronics in GE’s PET.

Last time I had a long conversation with Stearns and Jansen was at the 2018 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD in Sydney, Australia. Both of them, in particular Floris Jansen told me that I was right claiming many advantages in increasing the FOV and capturing more signals from the tumor markers and he was insisting with the managements of GE Healthcare to consider it, but so far was unsuccessful.

The last email I received from Floris Jansen on November 29^th, 2019, he stated: “Dario, I spoke about this to our leadership. It’s an interesting opportunity but our budget doesn’t allow us to pursue it right now. However I intend to keep pushing for this (it something like it) and I will keep your contact information. If things change for the better I will be back in touch. Floris Jansen”.

My email sent the day before stated: “…I would like to know what was the answer about what you mentioned during our conversation in Sydney if the management is interested in my approach of the 3D-CBS with 1.5 meter FOV using BGO and my patents pending that can potentially cover the entire world …”

We talked on the phone on April 4^th, 2019, I sent Floris an email with my updates, I did not receive an answer, but I see from the 1 minute and 55 second video presented at the 2021 Total Body PET conference that my message repeated for 20 years that manufacturers should not mention spatial resolution in the advertisement of their PET was acknowledged.

One more time we witness that new products placed in the market are not driven by science but by the marketing division of a Company. In this case we have people like Jansen who understood my 3D-CBS works best in reducing cancer deaths and costs, he insisted with the management to go in my direction, the management understood that the number of valid 511 keV pairs of photons detected is the square of the detector length increase, but in 20 years they increased the length of their PET to only 30 cm instead of my 150 cm FOV 3D-CBS.

2. Siemens,

2002: Michael Reitermann President of Siemens Nuclear Medicine (2002 – 2009), Vilim Simcic, Director of PET at Siemens Healthcare (2002 – 2005), John Engdahl Director of Advanced Research at Siemens Healthcare (2002 – 2005), Fred Macciocchi, Director of the electronic group at Siemens.

2021: Maurizio Conti, Director of PET Physics and Reconstruction, Siemens Healthineers (2016 to present); Bernard Bendrien, Principal R&D Expert, Siemens Healthineers.

Michael Reitermann

Vilim Simcic

John Engdahl

Maurizio Conti

Bernard Bendrien

Feedback in 2002 from Michael Reitermann, Vilim Simcic, John Engdahl and Fred Macciocchi are reported in Section 8 at page 16 of this document.

Feedback in 2017-2021 from Bernard Bendrien and Maurizio Conti are reported herein and in Section 7 on page 7 of this document.

I talked to Bendrien at the 2017 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Atlanta, Georgia, while I was distributing my article and he said would get back with me later, but he never did. I call him again on his cell phone two months ago, he answered, acknowledged remembering me form the 2017 IEEE-MIC Conference in Atlanta, but he hanged up the phone. Instead of making this report and expressing my disagreements after their developments, it would have been advantageous for the public to hear the answer to my remarks from Bendrien before their development.

On Siemens website, Bernard Bendrien advertises his work as follows.

Bernard Bendriem, states: “A lot of creativity comes from inside the company to make the dream of the physician a reality, … with this system, we will be able to bring the best of both worlds, both an extended axial field of view and a time-of-flight performance that is the best that can be achieved by the industry at this time”

And Maurizio Conti advertises his work as follows: “…we felt the need to answer a call from the scientific and clinical community for a scanner that would capture most of the organs at one time, dramatically increase sensitivity, and use the state-of-the-art detector technology we already had…”

I am respectfully refuting Conti’s statement. Siemens could have dramatically increase sensitivity at a lower cost 19 years ago after I solved their problem that allowed to improve by 70 % the efficiency of their 16 cm FOV PET. He claims: “the best that can be achieved by the industry at this time”, for what?

It is not for serving the public in reducing cancer deaths and cost. This can be proven by installing in two different locations where in the previous 20 years the cancer mortality rate was constant; in one location installing a Biograph Vision Quadra with TOF-PET and in another location my 3D-CBS without TOF-PET. Results of a screening test on a sample population age 55-74 will show that the 3D-CBS can achieve a higher reduction in mortality rate and in costs.

I am respectfully refuting Siemens’ claim: “A TOF image is equivalent to a non-TOF image obtained with a larger number of counts: TOF reconstruction acts as a “virtual counts or sensitivity amplifier” for a PET scanner…”

Figure 12. Slides from Siemens claiming “virtual counts or sensitivity amplifier”

 

Is your TOF reconstruction software creating signals arriving from the radioisotope in the human body that do not exist? Is your software creating virtual tumors that do not exist, misleading and deceiving doctors and patients? Are we before a Theranos 2 where Theranos 1 Theranos (https://bit.ly/2FYlEUc) was misleading, deceiving the public with results with a few drops of blood that they could not provide?

And here, we are facing Theranos 2 misleading, deceiving the public that your TOF-machine with your software can provide results whether the patient has cancer or not with a few signals that you amplify?

If transparency in science continue to be suppressed and Siemens and the media continue to advertise your TOF-software “sensitivity amplifier” the public will continue do be mislead and deceived like Elizabeth Holmes fooled Henry Kissinger (http://bit.ly/35ws0of) and George Shultz (https://on.wsj.com/3mlsd3y) and other high profile individuals and institutions in 2014.

I am respectfully refuting Siemens claim «…diminishing increase in sensitivity with axial FoV beyond 1 meter». FoV must be approximately 150 cm total, 28 cm longer on both sides of 94 cm vertex-thighs body length to capture oblique photons from head and prostate and provide same sensitivity for all organs along the entire length of the body from vertex to thighs.

 

Figure 13. Siemens’ claim that it is not necessary to extend PET FOV beyond 1 meter, which I refuted.

 

Is Science driven by Hypes and publicity or by logic, calculations and scientific evidence?

 

In 2002 Siemens and influential scientists in the field convinced the world that LSO crystals was the best crystal for PET and my 3D-CBS based on BGO crystals was even suppressed from presentations. We had to wait 20 years for someone to say “BGO is Back!”, which in reality was never gone, it was just suppressed.

Now Siemens came up with PET-TOF. Because transparency in science continue to be suppressed, does it take another 20 years or more for the scientific community to realize that PET principle of operation is counting valid 511 keV pairs of photons in a time unit and is not measuring a dimension?

How many years does it take to understand that we need instead instruments which accurately measure all possible “real” signals captured from valid pairs of 511 keV photons (not “virtual” generated by software) at the lowest cost per valid signal captured?

How many years does it take to understand that it is more effective to avoid false positives and false negative and save lives by analyzing the trend of data of anomalous biological processes, acquired simultaneously over the entire body, with a low-cost 3D-CBS test at short intervals using the same protocol, the same machine and the same radiation dose? While, even the most perfect machine providing sharp submillimeter resolution pictures (which are limited by the collinearity error and the error of the distance travelled by the positron before encountering an electron) cannot inform the doctor on the progression of the disease as it does my three inventions combined 3D-Flow, 3D-CBS and TB-CAD.

3. Philips,

Amy Perkins Technical Project Manager, Philips HealthTech

During the past two decades I also kept contacts with representatives from Philips. One of the last contacts was with Amy Perkins at the 2018 Total Body PET conference in Ghent, Belgium. When I asked to comment on my 3D-CBS design using BGO, she told me they were installing detector modules they had ready because wanted to deliver the machine as soon as possible.

4. United Imaging Healthcare, Shanghai, China

United Imaging Healthcare (UIH) Co., Ltd

Dr. Xue Min, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of United Imaging Healthcare (UIH)

Dr. Xiao Jiang Bai Senior Vice President,

Dr. Jun Bao, Senior Vice President, Member of the Executive Management Committee, MI BU CEO

Dr. Steve Tan, Ph.D., Senior Vice President, Member of the Executive Management Committee, HSW BU CEO

I had several feedback and interaction with United Imaging Healthcare. We exchanged correspondence and on July 2^nd, 2018, their representative at the industrial exhibition at the Total Body PET Conference in Ghent, Belgium, told me that they are OEM manufacturer and build products according to the specifications provided by the customer, which in the case of the EXPLORER was the three universities that received $15.5 million grant from U.S. Government through NIH.

I was invited to UIH Headquarter in Shanghai on November 19^th, 2018, when I gave a presentation to all leaders and Engineers of UIH that was followed by a discussion lasting approximately two hours. Their Engineer developing the ASIC, following my question admitted they were implementing my unique feature of neighboring data exchange between processing units.

Dr. Jun Bao on April 3^rd, 2019, responded with an email similar to the statements I receive from Siemens 17 years before (see Figure 5 and Figure 7 on page 16) concluding that expensive LYSO crystals “…allows better high-resolution imaging”.

Furthermore, Dr. Bao wrote: “it is critically important that we respect and heed the calls of many of the leading opinion leaders of the field”

Both statements are a clear evident that UIH was receiving information from the three universities in the U.S. (https://bit.ly/3vk81UE) to go in the wrong direction of measuring a dimension with an instrument based on a principle of operation of counting a variable within a time unit.

12.                     My CHALLENGE: “BUILD THE PET DEVICE WITH 150 cm FOV THAT SAVES MORE LIVES AT THE LOWER COST PER LIFE SAVE”

With this document I would like to LAUNCH the CHALLENGE to “BUILD A PET WITH 150 CM FOV THAT SAVES MORE LIVES AT THE LOWEST COST PER LIFE SAVED”

Figure 14 – To determine which PET (Positron Emission Technology) device is best to save lives, first a test should be performed on a phantom 27 cm in diameter and 110 cm in length filled with water to emulate approximately the volume and chemical of the human body which is mainly made of water. A 100 seconds test should be performed with a rod source of 1 mCi with the activity equally distributed along the 110 cm of the phantom and a second 100 seconds test with a point source of 0.1 mCi radiation dose placed in the center FOV of the PET device. The device that can accurately capture more 511 keV pair of photons at the lowest cost per valid pair of photon captured offers the highest potential to save lives and reduce costs when combined with a successful treatment of tumors detected at an early stage

Other parameters that will be affecting the efficiency of the test on humans

1. the efficiency of the hospital to organize the screening test,

1. the doctor’s experience at evaluating the measurements, gathering additional information, if necessary, to avoid false positives,

1. the doctor’s competence at combining the 3D-CBS results with information in the patient’s medical record and by interviewing the patient to arrive at the correct diagnosis and treatment,

1. the resources available to begin treatment as soon as possible,

1. the follow up of treatment with additional testing, and adjust treatment based on its measured response,

This can be verified with a screening test on a sample population of at least 10,000 people per year on each device in the age group 55-74 taken from a location where, in the previous 20 years the mortality rate was constant (e.g. 0.5%). A difference or no difference in mortality rata will quantify the efficacy of the device.

13.                     Letters addressed to IEEE leaders and people in the field of Medical Imaging, Total-Body PET, Nuclear Science Symposium and Room-Temperature Semiconductor Detectors

A.     Letter to Ikuo Kanno, General Chair of the 2021 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD

         Ikuo Kanno

Dear Ikuo,

Please read the report about the suffering and pain of the person dear to me (https://bit.ly/3Aks5bd; blog: https://bit.ly/3AwJj5z) like millions of other people who suffer because they discovered tumors at stage 3 or 4.

We are not on this planet to show our power in suppressing others but to use logical reasoning to understand the laws of nature for improving the quality of life to everyone and to use compassion to alleviate suffering.

I respectfully request to allow me to present my five papers (see pp. 11-36 at https://bit.ly/3hCdGPw), to include my articles relative to each of the five abstracts in the proceeding of the Conference and let colleagues from the scientific community express their disagreements providing their calculations and scientific reason instead of a “score” or a suppression.

Our disagreements should then be resolved with an experiment that is the judge in science and not the authoritarian position of an influential individual.

I see that among the invited speaker you selected Prof. Iwao Kanno.

I read with attention and interest his abstract that I am including below. I realize that he is in perfect agreement with what I am claiming for more than two decades that he emphasizes in one short sentence “The essence of PET is quantitative measurement of in vivo biology”. My 3D-CBS optimizing quantitative measurements is what he needs that he repeats several times in his abstract. E.g. “The ability to perform reliable quantitative measurements with PET has led to many benefits for neuroscience. .. Quantitative measurement of cerebral blood flow and oxygen metabolism… Quantitative assessment of ischemic level after stroke… quantitative in vivo assay of novel ligands… used to image neurorecepters, inflammation and abnormal proteins …a better way to diagnose neurological disorders…  quantitative PET can be applied to any organ in the body”.

It seems to me illogical rejecting my papers right now that after 20 years measurements from third parties prove that I was going in the right direction and they are going back to BGO crystals and to improve sensitivity.

Why for more than 20 years IEEE has pushed spatial resolution, the use of expensive LSO crystals with a shorter decay time to improve again spatial resolution, Paul Lecoq’s Challenge for a 10 picosecond electronics to improve spatial resolution and now the Time of Flight to improve again spatial resolution, while expert users are stressing the importance of “quantitative measurements” that IEEE has been suppressing for 20 years with my 3D-CBS? Could you please explain this and other inconsistencies?

Are there some political-economical reasons to go against the logic, against the science that Iwao Kanno made very clear in his abstract and that I made very clear in my short sentence that no one want to discuss “the 3D-CBS accurately captures all possible valid signals from the tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured”. This is quantitative measurement and is not focusing building instruments measuring high spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity and low-cost.

Your predecessor Rozenfed Anatoli, General Chair at the 2018 Conference in Sydney didn’t see anything wrong for me to present my papers. He authorized me to present them at the last days of the conference so I could include my articles in the proceedings of the Conference. However, he incurred into the obstacle of Tom Lewellen and Ralf Engels who was also Deputy General Chair at that time who didn’t want me to present them.

I went to ask immediately to Tom Lewellen who was standing behind the registration desk at the Conference and he answered in a rude way “Get out of my face”, Ralf Engels was not so rude, he tried to sweeten the pill without giving a real explanation and the fact that in 2020, he deleted several post I wrote on the chat window of the online IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference is an indication that there is something unclear that need to be addressed and clarified. Every year now I am receiving some strange reaction also from Craig Woody that I am going to address in a letter to him. All these behaviors, illogical, inconsistent with respect to the profession and ethics of a scientist cannot continue and we should be able to face it and resolve it.

Unfortunately, you are in the position of responsibility to address this. I respectfully ask you to take the same action as you predecessor Rozenfed Anatoli did in allowing me to present my papers and include the articles in the proceedings of the Conference because there are no logical-scientific reasons standing valid from the reviewers for their rejection.

I have answered to Taiga Yamaya proving that reviewer’s rejection claims are illogical while the other two papers submitted to NSS and RTSD didn’t even provide a reason for the rejection. The only claimed a score or referring to the previous years that were rejects with a score or illogical claims that I unveiled logically.

At this point if someone will disagree for my presentations and inclusion of my papers in the Proceedings should come up with a reason complying with logic, science and the ethics of a scientist.

 

Abstract Keynote speaker Iwao Kanno, Tuesday October 19^th, 2021.

Since the mid 1970’s, several groups in the United States, Europe and Asia had built prototype positron emission tomography (PET) devices that were applied to cardiovascular diseases, central nervous system dysfunctions and malignant tumours. These attempts demonstrated that PET images can provide important information to help understand in vivo pathophysiology. The success of these early PET studies spurred further development of new technologies over the next few decades. Recent improvements such as depth-of-interaction (DOI) and time-of-flight (TOF) detectors have enabled both high resolution and high sensitivity. In the future, new ideas such as whole gamma imaging (WGI), which is the simultaneous detection of positron annihilation and single gamma-rays, will open up new horizons in nuclear medicine imaging.

The essence of PET is quantitative measurement of in vivo biology. There are two steps to the quantitative measurement. The first step is to measure a raw image of the tracer concentration with appropriate corrections for unwanted coincidence events (e.g., scatter, random, attenuation) and distortions occurring inside the detector. The second step is to convert the raw concentration image into an image carrying biological information. The conversion is performed on the basis of well-characterized physical and chemical interactions between tracers and tissues. The physical interactions include tracer delivery and washout through diffusion and perfusion of blood flow, while the chemical interactions are the processes by which tracers bind to or are released from receptors in tissues.

The ability to perform reliable quantitative measurements with PET has led to many benefits for neuroscience. For example, quantitative measurement of cerebral glucose metabolism has enabled the spatiotemporal visualisation of neuronal activity. Quantitative measurement of cerebral blood flow and oxygen metabolism during neural stimulation disproved the hypothesis of tight coupling between oxygen supply and demand. Quantitative assessment of ischemic level after stroke provides useful clinical information for reperfusion. In addition, quantitative in vivo assay of novel ligands used to image neurorecepters, inflammation and abnormal proteins (e.g., amyloid, tau) has provided a better way to diagnose neurological disorders. While these examples focus on the brain, quantitative PET can be applied to any organ in the body.

B.     and Letter to Taiga Yamaya and Jae Sung Lee IEEE-MIC Co-Chairs

Taiga Yamaya                              Jae Sung

Dear Taiga and Jae,

Please read the report about the suffering and pain of the person dear to me (https://bit.ly/3Aks5bd; blog: https://bit.ly/3AwJj5z) like millions of other people who suffer because they discovered tumors at stage 3 or 4.

We are not on this planet to show our power in suppressing others but to use logical reasoning to understand the laws of nature for improving the quality of life to everyone and to use compassion to alleviate suffering.

Please read withing your text my rebuttal in between ***>my text <***.

I have provided the logical, technical, scientific answers that resolve all remarks raise by you and your reviewer. Therefore there are no more logical, or scientific reason to reject my papers and I respectfully ask you to approve them organizing a presentation before the end of the Conference and I am also asking to respectfully include my articles in the Proceedings of the Conference.

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

 

Rebuttal to the rejection of my abstracts

—–Original Message—–
From: Taiga Yamaya <yamaya.taiga@qst.go.jp>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 7:37 PM
To: crosettodario@gmail.com
Cc: ‘Dario Crosetto’ <info@3d-computing.com>; jaes@snu.ac.kr; Engels, Ralf <r.engels@fz-juelich.de>; 神野郁夫 <kanno@nucleng.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: 2021 IEEE NSS MIC RTSD | Reject Notice for Abstract #1283

Dear Dario,

Again, we are sorry that your abstracts were not accepted for presentation at the IEEE MIC2021. Here is feedback from reviewers. We hope these comments can be your help for your future research ***>There are evidence instead from experimental results that the research that was approved by IEEE with the papers in the past 20 years did not provide a significant reduction in cancer deaths and costs, and the scientific community just learned that they should go back to the BGO crystals that they rejected in my papers for 20 years. As well as they have to go back to many other things they have rejected in my papers.  Therefore I hope that these results can be your help for your future evaluation of what works and what doesn’t work in reducing cancer deaths and costs<***..

Best regards,

Jae Sung and Taiga

1998. I remember your book entitled as “400+ sensitivity …”, which, probably in more than 15-20 years ago, my boss at that time bought for young researchers like me to study. It is sure that CBS was an innovative idea at that time, and no body would not deny your CBS is one of the origin of the stream of a concept of current tota-body PET ***>If it was a good idea as also many others concur, why the ISBN of my book and my papers were not cited by you and others? If you claim that now there is a better idea that can achieve a higher reduction in cancer deaths and costs, could you provide a reference to that idea and then we will first use the logic, the calculations and scientific evidence to determine which idea is superior and then build my 3D-CBS and the one you refer to and then test both on a sample population to verify their efficacy. My invention is technology-independent, it is a concept, an architecture, an optimize synergy between all components that can migrate to the most cost-effective technology at any time. So please tell your reviewers to study my design and stop rejecting my project saying that it is old. The wheel is older than my invention, but it is still used and it follows the evolution of new material. In 1998 my 3D-Flow circuit was ported to three different FPGAs: Altera, Xilinx and ORCA, Lucent Technology and Synopsys ported it to a 350 nm CMOS technology. In 2003 I implemented using the largest FPGA from Altera at that time. In 2015 was mapped to a 40 nm technology gaining ten times in speed, consuming 1/10 and costing 1/200 compared to the 350 nm technology of 1998. Now it will be even faster, consume less and cost less. Please provide the reference to a PET project with long FOV of 150 cm which cost less than $2 million in components and that can capture all possible photons from a 30 mm thick crystal with 7g/cm³ density and then we can compare the detail. If you will not be able to prove with calculations any other project having a higher efficiency and lower cost, please stop stating that my 3D-CBS project is old so you and your reviewers will reject it. <***. I am sorry to tell you that MIC cannot accept your entries for presentation because the reviewers could not find enough technological updates from conventional technologies including your original CBS concept and the reviewers felt that medical-economical topic is quit difficult to discuss in MIC ***>If you cannot find a concept that provides higher efficiency at a lower cost, why do you want to give taxpayers who pay the research ideas, concepts and products that are less efficient and cost more? <***..

Thank you.   Taiga

——-

#1271

Studies show cancer screening tests on the 3D-CBS technology can save over 100 million lives and over $27 trillion in the next 30 years

“Out of the scope of IEEE MIC, which is described in the web site as the latest physics, engineering, and mathematical aspects of medical imaging.” ***>Is the latest physics, engineering and mathematical aspects of medical imaging the WPET (https://bit.ly/3d3m73J) (Wearable Positron Emission Tomography) device? The WPET is stating in the abstract (http://bit.ly/2Mv27gN), the authors state: “In this project we’re proposing to use the latest developments in scintillators, in scintillators, photo-detectors, electronics, quantum detection methodologies, system miniaturisation and data handling, storage and transmission, … Movement detectors (accelerometers as well as gyros) could be integrated in the jacket…” The patient is required to wear this jacket weighing over 350 kg for screening cancer for 24 hours. (http://bit.ly/2EPRXks). This award winning proposal states: “The WPET will allow the use of a lower dose radioactive tracer, 24 hour scan, and thus make possible preventive screening” (slide: http://bit.ly/2JWsxG2).

”Calculations and scientific evidence of approaches and innovations in physics, engineering and medical imaging that show cost-effectiveness compared to alternative approaches in providing advancement in science and benefits to taxpayers and cancer patients in lives and money saved is the latest in physics, engineering and mathematical aspects of medical imaging and it remain the latest until another more advanced concept can prove higher efficiency at a lower cost. It is illogical to take the WPET or Axial PET project that cost more and are less efficient only because it came later and reviewers call those latest technology. ”<***.   “As an analysis of economic feasibility rather than a technical study, it seems that the study does not fit the purpose of this meeting.” ***>It is indeed a very technical study, providing electronic schematics, mechanical design, implementation, real-time photon detection software algorithms, specifying the cost of each component, and providing quotes from two to three different companies for each component that proves feasibility. <***..   “This is a deeply flawed paper***>Nothing has been prove flawed in the paper<***. The abstract is a description of an Excel table, and printout of the completed table ***>I provided the link to the source file of the table with the access to each formula in each cell. You and your reviewers did not point out any flaws in my formula that would invalidate my claims <***., that calculates cost saving through implementing aggressive screening of the general population. While it is never actually stated in the abstract ***>This is not true, it is stated in line 7 of the abstract and in several places in the references <***.., the ‘3D-CBS’ system and use is assumed to be in practice a total body PET system performing FDG imaging. It is not possible within this limited space to detail my concerns with this abstract, so I will simply give some of the larger ones: It is assumed that each 3D-CBS system will screen 90,000 patients per year in 250 imaging days. This assumes 22.5 patients per hour, or 2.67 minutes per patient. ..,  While the total body imaging may be feasible in 2 minutes, it is not feasible in clinical practice to turn over the system in 0.67 minutes for the next patient. ***>My abstract states “360 x 2-minute test”.  This is based on a 1-minute screening test + 1-minute in-out the bed for a throughput of 2-minute total, as performed daily in Shanghai, China. Your calculation of 0.67 minutes is arbitrary and cannot find relation in my text. Therefore, nothing has been proven flawed here <***. The assumed cost of $200 per scan is not justified with a detailed breakdown of costs. The consumables alone for an FDG injection of a patient are tens of dollars (e.g. saline, catheter set, syringe, FDG, laundry, etc.), ***>The cost of the consumables, salaries, etc. has been discussed with several experts in the field, a salary of $400,000 per year for each of the 20 doctors has been found reasonable. You have not provided remarks to invalidate the cost, the laundry, syringe, etc. can fit in the buffer of $23,120 per day which is the difference between the income of $81,60/day, minus expenses $58,480/ day <***..,  so I am not convinced at the costing . ***>The words “I am not convinced or it is not credible” should never be used by a scientist or reviewer, who should rather provide his calculation showing something significantly wrong or should let someone else review the paper stating not being competent in the field <*** In year 30 it is assumed that there will be 57,409 scanners each imaging 90,000 patients per year. This is 5.167 Billion scans per year, or roughly 50% of the world’s population images each year. This number does not seem credible. ***>How many people have been punched with a syringe in the arm for the Covid-19 vaccine during the past year? The words “I am not convinced or it is not credible” should never be used by a scientist or reviewer, who should rather provide his calculation showing something significantly wrong or should let someone else review the paper stating not being competent in the field <*** There is no mention or costing of the impact of interventions caused by false positive results.” ***>My additional invention TB-CAD, (Total Body Computer-Aided Diagnosis) basing the diagnosis on analyzing the trend of data from several screening tests at short distance will reduce considerably the number of false positives. Again, the buffer of $23,120/day margin between income-expenses per day can cover these expenses. If not sufficient the screening test can be increased to $250/test but still this does not invalidate my claims and you did not prove being flawed <***           ——- #1279 Studies show cancer screening tests on the 3D-CBS technology at $200/test and very low radiation can save over 260 lives per year per device at less than $140,000 per life saved, compared to the current $10 million per life saved   “This is not a technical study, and most of the content is based on speculation.” ***>This is what is eliminating speculation. Speculation is the cost of cancer in the world of over $1.5 trillion per year and seeing the mortality reaching 10 million cancer deaths per year and increasing every year because no one is making this technical study. For example, Italy is spending €20 billion per year on cancer with a constant population and a slight increase in cancer mortality. It is when data show no difference in mortality rate between countries that spend huge money for cancer and those that do not spend money.

<***   “This paper proposes that using the author’s total body PET/CT, called the 3D-CBS, to screen 90,000 patients per year will save 260 lives per year and be profit generating for the clinical site. The economics of running a large scale screening center can be debated. ***>This is a good reason to approve this paper to start a debate <*** In my opinion ***>The words “in my opinion” should not be used by a scientist or reviewer, who should rather provide his calculation showing something significantly wrong or should let someone else review the paper stating not being competent in the field <*** the author underestimates the costs per scan and throughput that can be reliably achieved in a clinical setting, both of which will impact the economic feasibility. ***>Please provide your knowledgeable information and we can cross-check your data <***  The core issue that I see with this paper is that the underlying hypothesis is that it is possible to reliably detect most tumours when they consist of only a few hundred cells. If this is truly consistently possible, then there may be merit to the mass screening program proposed. ***>This is possible, it has been measured experimentally on the EXPLORER that can detect clusters emitting only 10 signals per second (Bq) in the air, which is reasonable to expect to detect 100 cells in a water phantom or human body <***   If it is not possible, then none of the subsequent assumptions about lives saved and cost for life saved are valid. While it is never stated, the assumption is that the tracer is FDG. This is a non-specific tracer that makes identifying small lesions in a patient very difficult in the presence of the background of physiological variability. ***>To overcome this problem, I made an additional invention TB-CAD, (Total Body Computer-Aided Diagnosis) basing the diagnosis on analyzing the trend of data from several screening tests at short distance in time (months) <***   This paper presented no data to support the hypothesis that these very small tumours can be reliable identified in vivo.” ***>Two data support this hypothesis: the capability to detect clusters emitting fewer than 100 signals from the tumor markers (which has been verified) and my additional invention TB-CAD, (Total Body Computer-Aided Diagnosis) basing the diagnosis on analyzing the trend of data from several screening tests at short distance in time (months) <***                       ——- #1283 3D-CBS: The first true paradigm change in biomedical imaging invented 20 years ago, confirmed by measured results to enable a safe, very early lifesaving cancer detection. Why hasn’t it been funded? Who is responsible for millions of needless deaths?   “The authors claim may not be wrong, but scientific data to back it up has not been presented.” ***>Scientific data are presented: the concept of the innovative part tested in hardware, the simulation, the mechanical design of the real-system, the electronic schematics, the real-time photon detection algorithm. 59 quotes from 21 industries with good reputation showing feasibility to build all components <***   “This paper gives high level details on the author’s proposed 3D-CBS PET system design, describing the power consumption and data throughput, then describes how his design has not gotten a fair review and been overlooked for 20 years. As a technical paper it lacks sufficient detail to evaluate the claims. ***>Technical details are summarized in one figure showing all component in scale and links are provided to the details of each component. Please provide the reference to another abstract and summary describing the entire project and the details of each component as this abstract-summary provides <*** While the electronics are somewhat described, there is no detail provided about the detector itself other than the fact it is 30mm thick BGO with 1.5 m axial FOV. ***>There is the list of 17 bullet points in my summary answering all these question with references to document providing the details: e.g. the detector is described on page 178 and 183 of the reference 2 goo.gl/ggGGwF <***  Is there a prototype or simulation data that can support the claims of reliably detecting tumours in vivo containing only 150 Bq? ***>The 150 Bq is supported by measurements made on the EXPLORER with 18.1 mm thick LYSO crystal with the same density as the BGO crystal, therefore a 30 mm BGO crystal can detect clusters with even fewer than 150 Bq. <***   The author bases the assumption about performance from extrapolations to their system design from data acquired with the 2m long EXPLORER system. This can be valid if supporting data are provided to demonstrate the relative performance of the EXPLORER detectors and the proposed 3D-CBS detectors. However, these data are not provided. Rather, the claims are made without any supporting evidence. ***>My assumption is valid because the measurements on the EXPLORER are public and I provided those in reference 6 of my summary. The supporting evidence are the EXPLORER with 18.1 mm thick LYSO crystal with the same density as the BGO crystal. Therefore for a point source in a human body 95 cm from head to thighs, covered by the 2m long EXPLORER or by the 150 cm long 3D-CBS you can expect a better sensitivity than 150 Bq on the 3D-CBS <***   As an aside, there seems to be a disconnect between pages 1 and 2 of the summary. In page 1, the electronics are described as being 16x16x16 cm. In page 2 the electronics are in two 8U racks. This alone would be roughly 70x50cm for the front panel area.” ***>The two 8U racks includes data acquisition, A/D converters, power supplies, etc. When I mention the electronics in page 1 I am referring to the heart of the system that is executing the algorithm to calculate the total energy, clustering, x, y, z coordinates of the incident photon and photon’s arrival time. This electronics to provide an efficient execution of the photon detection algorithm is contained in 16x16x16cm <***

C.   Letter to Ralf Engels, Deputy General Chair of the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD

Ralf Engel

Dear Ralf,

Please read the report about the suffering and pain of the person dear to me (https://bit.ly/3Aks5bd; blog: https://bit.ly/3AwJj5z) like millions of other people who suffer because they discovered tumors at stage 3 or 4.

We are not on this planet to show our power in suppressing others but to use logical reasoning to understand the laws of nature for improving the quality of life to everyone and to use compassion to alleviate suffering.

After your disagreements with IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD General Chair, Rozenfed Anatoli in 2018 to let me present my papers that were rejected with illogical, unscientific untrue claims by the reviewer, I was expecting to receive an email from you to address this inconsistency to avoid incurring the same problem in the future.

Instead, I was surprised that at the 2020 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD online conference you deleted some of my post in the chat window, again without a logical, scientific reason for your action, without addressing the content of my post, which I still have a copy and you can express your ideas any time.

One of your excuses in 2018, which however, cannot be a valid reason was that you wanted to be fair to the other participants who were approved or rejected.

Don’t you think that you should be fair first and far most to SCIENCE and next to taxpayers and humanity and not to an incompetent reviewer?

If a reviewer would reject a paper claiming the earth is flat, would you take his side or the side of Science? By all means, be also fair to all other authors who had a paper rejected by an incompetent reviewer and the author proved like I did that the reviewer was illogical, not scientific, not truthful and reinstate his paper as Rozenfed Anatoli reinstated mine.

Taking the side of an incompetent reviewer is not a logical, scientific, ethical, professional reason and in my case is also damaging humanity that was prevented by receiving the benefits from my inventions that they could receive if during these past 20 years I would have a chance to present them to the people working in the field, listen and answer to their doubts or what it was not clear to them.

I respectfully ask you to read carefully my rebuttal to Taiga and Jae’s reviewer and would approve my presentation and inclusion of my papers in the proceedings

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Dario

D.   Letter to Craig Woody, IEEE-NSS co-Chair

Craig Woody

Dear Craig,

Please read the report about the suffering and pain of the person dear to me (https://bit.ly/3Aks5bd; blog: https://bit.ly/3AwJj5z) like millions of other people who suffer because they discovered tumors at stage 3 or 4.

We are not on this planet to show our power in suppressing others but to use logical reasoning to understand the laws of nature for improving the quality of life to everyone and to use compassion to alleviate suffering.

I am so surprise and I cannot explain your hatred toward me that is manifesting with your actions and seems not going away. We should address this as responsible professionals. If there is anything I did to cause you hatred toward me let me know.

This year, rather then providing what you promised in your email when informing that my paper was rejected stating: “detailed feedback regarding why your submission was not accepted, please respond to this message”, I did not receive any reason, instead I saw on my IEEE account that you posted in less than one minute five copy of my rejection. (see Figure 14).

In 2018 you sent me the rejection email in a single string of 9,972 characters, one next to the other, impossible to read (see below), while you sent the same email to other colleagues in a formatted form that they could read. I diligently with patience separated the words and the paragraphs making it readable, I rebut to the reviewer’s illogical claims and wrong calculations but I never received a feedback from you.

When I went to the 2018 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Sydney, Australia, your hatred attitude toward me was expressed with your behavior that I feared at some point being harmed physically.

What has triggered such a fury toward me? I am just trying to respectfully make some point that are logical to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge. If you disagree on something, just express your disagreement without all these subtle hostile actions.

But more important I would like to get in peace with you and find a way to communicate professionally. I have been trying to do so since when I gave a seminar at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) on September 24^th, 2009, when I have shown the slides regarding the PET compared to the water meter, anemometer and I remember you asking question and disagreeing. (I had shown the slides of Figure 1 and Figure 2 of this document).

If there is anything I said to you that I must take notice, it will be important to find out. I have a record of all the emails we exchanged and I have also the videorecording of the Seminar I gave at BNL on 9/24/2009 when you were present with the Biology Department and the Physics Department of BNL.

So, please let me know and I am still interested to receive the detailed reasons why my abstract was rejected this year as well as the feedback regarding my rebuttal of last review (https://bit.ly/3pjU2gH) invalidating the incorrect statements of your reviewer.

I remember asking the following:

“Please could you provide a scientific reason for the rejection and please could you also provide a reference to another project, idea or approach that can compete in higher or equal performance and lower cost in building a Fully Programmable Level-1 Trigger System Capable of executing Fast, Multidimensional Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithms on Ultra-High Speed Data Arriving in Parallel from a Matrix of Thousands of Transducers. For comparison could you please refer to a system with 8,192 Channels (or scale the cost to a system of that dimension), Extracts all valuable information from 80 million events/second (radiation) from over a billion collisions/second contained in a cube with 36 cm side at approximately $100,000 for each duplicate (based on quotes received in the fall 2015)?”

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Dario

Figure 15. instead of providing detailed reasons for the rejection of my papers, Craig Woody posts on my IEEE account in less than 1 minute, five copies of the same rejection message.

From: IEEE 2018 NSS/MIC/RTSD <abstract@eventclass.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 6:52 AM
To: info@3d-computing.com; crosettodario@gmail.com
Subject: IEEE 2018 NSS/MIC/RTSD – Re: 2018 NSS Reject Notice for Abstract #2122

Dear Dario, All papers were reviewed by an independent set of reviewers and the decision on which ones were selected for the conference was based on technical content, innovation and originality. Based on the opinions of the reviewers and the Topic Conveners for the session to which you submitted your abstract, it was felt that the level of innovation and originality was not sufficient to justify acceptance into this year’s program. Please find below several of the reviewers comments. Best regards, Craig Woody 2018 NSS Co-Chair Reviewer 1 This paper is an accumulation of claims but does not provide any supporting evidence whatsoever. It remains unclear in which way the “Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithm” actually functions. There is a bold claim that “all” information can be extracted from 8192 channels, thereby out-performing current trigger farms at the LHC. The LHC experiments have many more than 8192 channels, and execute trigger algorithms with input channel counts far exceeding this number. This would necessitate hundreds of such crates, and the required interconnects. 8192 channels would be a much too narrow key-hole view of a LHC collision for any of the experiments. Neither would such a narrow 8192-channel view allow one to calibrate “all parts of the instrument”. The presentation is more than vague on the hardware. What technology is (or would be) used in those 3D-Flow processors? Who would build them? From the “26 instructions in less than 3ns” number I calculate a processing speed of about 115 MIPS, roughly equivalent to a 1994-vintage Motorola 68060 CPU, which is in line with the general age of the described technology. There are no power consumption figures (other than that it is “low”) for the 43008 3D processors. There are no physical dimensions given, and no information about the type of internal interconnects. Extraordinary claims such as this one require extraordinary proof. None of that is presented here. I have no choice than to recommend to reject this paper. Reviewer 2 The author might be a genius but the material shown fails to even hint it. The content is unclear, controversial, at some places it is disrespectful, if not insulting and defamatory towards some people. I have nothing against this author, but this behavior is clearly unacceptable in a scientific community. Reviewer 3 For this contribution is hard to understand the motivation and interested for the audience. Probably not suited for this conference On 7/30/2018 10:19 PM, 3D-Computing, Inc. wrote: > > Dear Craig and reviewers of the 2018 IEEE-RTSD, > > I regret you have not accepted my paper #2122. > > Please could you provide a scientific reason for the rejection and please could you also provide a reference to another project, idea or approach that can compete in higher or equal performance and lower cost in building a Fully Programmable Level-1 Trigger System Capable of executing Fast, Multidimensional Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithms on Ultra-High Speed Data Arriving in Parallel from a Matrix of Thousands of Transducers. For comparison could you please refer to a system with 8,192 Channels (or scale the cost to a system of that dimension), Extracts all valuable information from 80 million events/second (radiation) from over a billion collisions/second contained in a cube with 36 cm side at approximately $100,000 for each duplicate (based on quotes received in the fall 2015)? > > Craig, I believe you attended my seminar at BNL in 2009 when I was invited by Ralph James and I presented my 3D-Flow project before experts in instrumentation. If you did not attend, you could ask your colleagues that I was able to answer satisfactorily to all questions. This can be proven by the video that we recorded of the seminar and the discussion that followed with your colleagues. Now I have 59 quotes from 21 reputable industries proving feasibility to build a system with 50,000 x 3D-Flow processors contained in a 36 cm cube that can handle up to 8,192 channels at 1.3TB/sec costing approximately $100,000 (based on quotes received in the fall of 2015. Because my invention is technology independent, the use of current technology will provide higher performance that would be of interest to the scientific community). > > The summary of my #2122 paper summarize in one figure the entire 3D-Flow OPRA Level-1 Trigger System (goo.gl/w3XlZ1) capable of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation at the lowest cost per valid signal captured can replace many crates of electronics of the current experiments at CERN with a single crate, providing a much more powerful system and a staggering increase in performance at a much lower cost. The proposal also details the verifiable capabilities of not only checking the functionality and performance of the 3D-Flow system but also whether the electronics installed in the detector at CERN (or other site) are working properly by recording the trigger raw data at the LHC bunch-crossing rate and analyzing whether each of the 8,192 channels provide the expected value. This feature is also important for the calibration of all parts of the instruments (CMS, Atlas, etc.). > > The 3D-Flow OPRA is a new electronic instrument and device to solve target application problems of fast, real-time multi-dimensional Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition (OPRA) on data arriving in parallel from a matrix of thousands of transducers at a very high speed that are sent to an equivalent matrix of thousands of 3D-Flow processors. It extracts ALL valuable information from e.g. radiation at the lowest cost per each valid data captured, by executing specialized instructions (or “OPRA steps” for an optimized Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithm). At each “step” each processor in the array of thousands of 3D-Flow processors can execute up to 26 operations such as add, subtract, compare with 24 values, etc. in less than 3 nanoseconds. It has the capability of fast data exchange (2×2, 3×3, 5×5…) with neighboring processors and can execute uninterruptable complex algorithms for a time longer than the time between two consecutive input data sets by adding layers of 3D-Flow processors communicating through a bypass switch assuring zero dead-time. > > The 3D-Flow OPRA could be considered the third generation of electronic instruments, following the invention of the Oscilloscope and the invention of the Logic State Analyzer. The oscilloscope was invented in the late 19th century. The Logic State Analyzer was invented in 1973 when computers required to visualize a large number of signals that the oscilloscope had trouble handling. > > The 3D-Flow OPRA can execute users’ desired programmable complex Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithms (OPRA) comparing the desired reference object (shape and detailed characteristics) with billions of objects per second, while sustaining an input data rate of several million frames per seconds, with zero dead-time. > > … > > The author proved the feasibility and functionality in hardware on two modular boards each having 68 x 3D-Flow processors, suitable for building 3D-Flow systems for matrices of any size transducers, and he has now for the first time detailed the design of all components needed to build 3D-Flow systems in two modular form factors: VXI boards 36.6 cm x 40 cm and VME boards 16 cm x 23.3 cm. A total of fifty-nine quotes to build all parts have been provided by reputable industries. To prove feasibility and competitiveness, the inventor received two or three quotes from different companies for the construction of the same part. For example: One crate of VXI boards for applications in discovering new particles with approximately 50,000 x 3D-Flow processors contained in a 36 cm cube can handle up to 8,192 channels at 1.3TB/sec costing approximately $100,000 (based on quotes received). One crate of VME boards for applications in medical imaging and multi-lens cameras with 14,500 x 3D-Flow processors contained in a 16 cm cube can handle up to 2,304 channels at 368GB/sec at an approximate cost of $50,000 (based on quotes received). The selling price of these systems will be determined by the market value set by the company commercializing the product. The inventor refuted with scientific evidence the rejection claims by the 2016 IEEE reviewers and CMS Spokesperson [4,5], however, no scientific calculations, evidence, or proofs were provided by the reviewers to support their rejection claims. > > However, I will be looking forward to receive your reference to a system that you know providing performance similar to my 3D-Flow OPRA. > > Sincerely, > > Dario Crosetto > > From: IEEE 2018 NSS/MIC/RTSD [mailto:abstract@eventclass.org] > Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 9:32 AM > To: Dario Crosetto > Cc: info@3d-computing.com > Subject: 2018 NSS Reject Notice for Abstract #2122 > > Dear Dario, > > We regret to inform you that your abstract (#2122) “3D-FLOW OPRA for Level-1 Trigger: A Breakthrough Invention Capable of Extracting ALL Valuable Information from Radiation Providing a Very Powerful Tool to Discover New Particles, Reduce HEP Costs, Advance Science and Benefit Humanity” has not been accepted for presentation in the 2018 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. > > The decision was made by the NSS Program Committee based on the reviewers’ evaluations. Your submission was rated on Technical Merit, Originality & Innovation, and Significance by three reviewers. These reviews were then assessed by the Topic Convener(s) who provided a recommendation to the Program Chairs and we are the ones who made the final decision. If you would like detailed feedback regarding why your submission was not accepted, please respond to this message. > > We would like to thank you for your submission and hope you will submit again in the future. In addition, we hope to see you in Sydney. > > Sincerely, > Craig Woody & Geoffrey Taylor > 2018 NSS Program Chairs

E.   Letter to Tadayuki Takahash, IEEE-NSS Co-Chair

Tadayuki Takahash

Dear Tadayuki,

Please read the report about the suffering and pain of the person dear to me (https://bit.ly/3Aks5bd; blog: https://bit.ly/3AwJj5z) like millions of other people who suffer because they discovered tumors at stage 3 or 4.

We are not on this planet to show our power in suppressing others but to use logical reasoning to understand the laws of nature for improving the quality of life to everyone and to use compassion to alleviate suffering.

I will appreciate if you could address what I wrote to Craig Woody, in particular the last paragraph

“Please could you provide a scientific reason for the rejection and please could you also provide a reference to another project, idea or approach that can compete in higher or equal performance and lower cost in building a Fully Programmable Level-1 Trigger System Capable of executing Fast, Multidimensional Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithms on Ultra-High Speed Data Arriving in Parallel from a Matrix of Thousands of Transducers. For comparison could you please refer to a system with 8,192 Channels (or scale the cost to a system of that dimension), Extracts all valuable information from 80 million events/second (radiation) from over a billion collisions/second contained in a cube with 36 cm side at approximately $100,000 for each duplicate (based on quotes received in the fall 2015)?”

I am also providing my rebuttal (https://bit.ly/3pjU2gH) to the previous rejection when Woody sent me the detailed reasons.

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

F.    Letter to Ralph James IEEE-RTSD Co-Chair

Ralph James

Dear Ralph,

Please read the report about the suffering and pain of the person dear to me (https://bit.ly/3Aks5bd; blog: https://bit.ly/3AwJj5z) like millions of other people who suffer because they discovered tumors at stage 3 or 4.

We are not on this planet to show our power in suppressing others but to use logical reasoning to understand the laws of nature for improving the quality of life to everyone and to use compassion to alleviate suffering.

In regard your score explanation:

500 years ago, the scientific community suppressed for 100 years with a score without providing legitimate, logical, scientific reasons, Galileo’s book (https://bit.ly/3zlnuUX) reporting correct calculations and the scientific truth.

In the past I asked these questions and I have not received a response:

Dario <crosettodario@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 4:25 PM
To: ralph.james@srnl.doe.gov
Subject: RE: 2020 IEEE NSS MIC RTSD | Reject Notice for Abstract #1691

Dear Ralph,

Is it legitimate to request how you and your reviewer determined the grades in relation to the content of my abstract vs. others “..rejections were based on the responses from multiple reviewers (usually 3). Grades were offered in separate categories, and based on those different grades, an overall score was compiled for each abstract”?

Did you and your reviewers find not satisfactory the feature of my 3D-Flow OPRA system to execute in real-time any uninterruptable programmable Object Pattern Recognition Algorithms (OPRA) with neighboring data exchange (3×3, 5×5, …), for a time longer than the interval between two consecutive input data sets? Which grade did you and your reviewers give to my system and to alternative systems for this feature?

Please could you provide the reference to an alternative system or project  with the capability to do the same or higher performance at a lower cost compared to a 3D-Flow system capable of 12,800 Gbps input bandwidth, with 10,000 electronic input channels, 50,000 x 3D-Flow processors and the capability to execute up to 40 “OPRA steps” on each processor that can be built with 2015 technology in a 36 cm cube of electronics consuming less than 6 kW at a cost of less than $15 per channel? Which grade did you and your reviewers give to my system and to alternative systems for these features?

Did you and your reviewers find any information in the detailed design of each component (electronic boards, cables, references to algorithm, simulation, etc.) reported in the reference (goo.gl/w3XlZ1)? Which grade did you and your reviewers give to my system and to alternative systems for these scientific rigour and essential information? Could you provide a reference to an alternative article, project, system with higher scientific rigour and essential information for a project that did not receive funding yet?

Do you think that the engineers of the reputable companies who provided the 59 quotes of each component for my 3D-Flow system were incompetent and you have solid calculations and scientific evidence that what they claimed to be feasible is not true? Which grade did you and your reviewers give to my system and to alternative systems for this aspect proving feasibility?

And in a previous email I wrote in regard your claim on the topic:

In regard to the paper you and Michael Fiederle rejected last year and the previous year claiming it was not within the scope of your Topic, this year I changed the submission to the Topic: “RTSD-10 – Detector/ASIC Hybridization, Interconnects and Electronics”.

My paper has many relations to the topic of the RTSD-10, to detector, ASIC, interconnect and electronics, and it is innovative, useful and advantageous compared to existing components and system.

If you disagree please provide the references to components and systems more flexible, with higher performance and at lower costs compared to my technology-independent 3D-FLOW ASIC and system.

Later at the presentation I saw several papers presented at your RTSD Conference that were the same topic as mine.

I respectfully ask you to let me present my paper and include it in the Proceedings of the conference.

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Dario

G.   Letter to Tadayuki Takahash, IEEE-RTSD Co-Chair

Tadayuki Takahash

Dear Tadayuki,

Please read the report about the suffering and pain of the person dear to me (https://bit.ly/3Aks5bd; blog: https://bit.ly/3AwJj5z) like millions of other people who suffer because they discovered tumors at stage 3 or 4.

We are not on this planet to show our power in suppressing others but to use logical reasoning to understand the laws of nature for improving the quality of life to everyone and to use compassion to alleviate suffering.

Please can you read the text I wrote to Ralph?

I respectfully ask you to let me present my paper and include it in the Proceedings of the conference.

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Dario

H.   Letter to Tom Lewellen Treasure of the 2021 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference

Dear Tom,

Please read the report about the suffering and pain of the person dear to me (https://bit.ly/3Aks5bd; blog: https://bit.ly/3AwJj5z) like millions of other people who suffer because they discovered tumors at stage 3 or 4.

We are not on this planet to show our power in suppressing others but to use logical reasoning to understand the laws of nature for improving the quality of life to everyone and to use compassion to alleviate suffering.

It upset me to hear from you the statement behind the registration desk of IEEE in Sydney “Get out of my way” also because 21 years ago I was reading with interest your articles about the testing on the GE PET that I cited in my book (goo.gl/ggGGwF) on page 193, reference 36 and on page 197, reference 118.

I still hope one day to make a technical conversation with you about PET in an environment where each of us express his calculations and finding and is open to listen the consideration of the other person.

I hope that you will not have objections for me to present my ideas to others and hear their reactions.

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

I.     Letter to Simon Cherry Distinguished Professor Biomedical Engineering Radiology

Dear Simon,

Please read the report about the suffering and pain of the person dear to me (https://bit.ly/3Aks5bd; blog: https://bit.ly/3AwJj5z) like millions of other people who suffer because they discovered tumors at stage 3 or 4.

We are not on this planet to show our power in suppressing others but to use logical reasoning to understand the laws of nature for improving the quality of life to everyone and to use compassion to alleviate suffering.

I would like to thank you for immediately calling me after I left a message in your answering machine in May 2021 in regard to the possibility to get some non-invasive information for the person dear to me.

I really appreciated that. It shows you have compassion, although I believe things could have gone differently.

I am still puzzled why you and your colleague who did not know how to build a PET with long FOV got $15.5 million and gave it to the Chinese while myself who I had the experience in handling problems much more complex in detecting electrons, hadrons, photons, muons, jets, etc. in a detectors 43m in length and 13m in diameter did not receive funding in 21 years (besides $1 million from DOE in 1995 for High Energy Physics applications).

In your email you explain that in order to accept a patient in a trial there are months of preparation without knowing if the trial would be approved. Yes, I understand the bureaucracy, however, in June of 2020 I wrote a 147 page article (https://bit.ly/2NFkJbK) where I was proposing the Government Funding Agencies to give you $42 million to run a screening test on the EXPLORER because I am certain that it will show to save lives and my 3D-CBS will save even more at a lower cost.

I have not been afraid to write a document to suggest to give you that amount of money. I wrote that because it made sense, because is the logical thing to do to advance in the direction of saving lives, although is not for my 3D-CBS. The EXPLORER now exist therefore is the logical step to take, but at the same time, I expect you will have the same spirit to work with the goal of reducing suffering and saving lives and will also recommend the Government Funding Agencies to provide me funding to build the 3D-CBS more affordable for screening.

This is what the public who trust scientists expect us to do, to collaborate to solve their problem not ours.

Anyway, thank you again for returning the call and if you will be available to go to talk together to the funding agency NIH, I think that this would be the best action to take not only for Americans, but for humanity.

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

President of the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths

900 Hideaway Pl.

DeSoto, TX 75115

Email: crosettodario@gmail.com