Cancer will be defeated only when ROADMAPS (https://bit.ly/3ova8Tz) targeted to this goal are publicly compared, using calculations to demonstrate how premature cancer deaths and costs can be universally reduced, and when institutions and organizations like Susan G. Komen put into practice President Mattarella’s words: ‘Without memory, there is no future’.

Rome, 12 May 2024: Dario Crosetto, an Italian-American scientist who has worked at the world’s largest research centers including CERN in Geneva and the Superconducting Super Collider in the USA, and has designed cutting-edge instrumentation for experiments at FERMIlab in Chicago, Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York, and other applications, calls on institutions to put into practice President Mattarella’s words, “Without memory, there is no future,” and support the ‘RESISTANCE’ against injustice and suppression of truth in defense of science and cancer patients.

Among the 150,000 Italians who attended the so called “Race for the Cure” at the Circus Maximus in Rome on 12 May 2024, coming from all over Italy and driven by the collective desire to solve the cancer problem alongside President Mattarella, the Minister of Health, and government officials, was the Italian-American scientist Crosetto. He reminded us in an open letter (https://bit.ly/4byXOry) that to defeat cancer goodwill alone is not enough.

2. Did Komen Executives Know in 2007 What Saves Lives and What Does Not?

On 3 July 2007, volunteers of Susan G. Komen who believe in the goal of contributing to the defeat of cancer organized a meeting between Crosetto and two prominent scientists, Dwight Randle and Cheryl Perkins, at the Susan G. Komen Foundation headquarters in Dallas, Texas. With the consent of all participants, the meeting was recorded (Audio recording link: https://bit.ly/3QU6kt3).

These two expert scientists were unable to refute the calculations in Crosetto’s 2000 book (goo.gl/ggGGwF) and subsequent articles (video: https://bit.ly/31CLuG7), which demonstrate that his 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) invention is 400 times more efficient than the 3,000 PET (Positron Emission Tomography) devices available at the time. This increase in efficiency of the 3D-CBS offers an early diagnosis capable of detecting tumors with only 100 cancer cells throughout the body through a safe 2-minute screening test costing only $200, before a mammogram, CT scan, or MRI can detect 1-millimeter tumors corresponding to 1,000,000 cells.

At minute 53:06 of https://bit.ly/3QU6kt3, a Susan G. Komen scientist stated: “This is fascinating, if we can have better screening, this is what we need, and we know that!” and at minute 55:03 added: “Thank you so much and keep up with the good work, people like you will change the world!”

If you agree with Cosetto’s goal to convey his inventions to future generations and demand transparency in science and in roadmaps to address/solve the most pressing societal problems, please consider making a donation to the non-profit, tax-exempt 501 (c3):

‘Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths’ at the bank account cc. 96-2079895 at Frost Bank, 3801 Matlock Rd, Arlington, TX 76015 – ABA: 114000093 – SWIFT: FRSTUS44 –or PayPal at https://crosettofoundation.org/donate-now/

Press Contact: Dario Crosetto, President of Crosetto Foundation – Phone: 1-469-747-5669 Email: crosetto@crosettofoundation.org

Please pardon the repetitions within this document. It is not designed to be read linearly like a novel, but rather for readers to access sections relevant to their interests. As each section aims to be self-contained, some repetition across the document is unavoidable.

3. Outrage: Komen Executives Request Deletion of Evidence Showing Their Knowledge of Life Saving Methods

Komen scientists are aware of what saves lives and what does not. They know that experimental data shows early detection of breast cancer saves lives in 98% of cases and understand that 3D-CBS would be the solution to the breast cancer problem that the Komen Foundation claims to want to solve. Therefore, they approached Komen’s executives, inquiring for funding Crosetto to build the 3D-CBS to experimentally verify that it saves many lives through effective early detection screening paired with successful existing treatments when the tumor is in an early curable stage.

However, Crosetto reports with disbelief and dismay what followed:

“...two hours after the meeting, I received a phone call from Dwight Randle informing me that Susan G. Komen executives had a different strategy and did not intend to adopt a better early detection method than the existing one. Surprisingly, he asked me to destroy the recording. I communicated with the volunteer who had organized the meeting, but there was no way to persuade the executives to analyze the best strategy to eradicate cancer.”

Crosetto continues:

“It is bewildering that Komen executives, faced with the choice of funding an experiment that would prove they can solve the problem they claim to want to solve, seem to knowingly and deliberately choose to suppress the experiment in order to continue fundraising, promising donors they will achieve the goal, while fully aware that there are experimental results showing their strategy will never significantly reduce premature cancer mortality.”

4. Sixteen Years Later, Facts Show Komen’s Eradication Strategy for Breast Cancer Fails, While Crosetto’s Early Cancer Detection Invention Is Confirmed Correct by Experimental Results

Komen’s strategy to “eradicate breast cancer as a life-threatening disease through promoting prevention, supporting women facing the disease, and advancing the quality of treatment” as stated on their website https://www.thinkpinkeurope.org/en/Who-we-are/Think-Pink-Europe-members/Member/Id/113/Italy, is a failure.

The truth emerges from experimental results, continues Crosetto:

“Sixteen years later, the facts show that their strategy (spending 51% of the funds raised https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_G._Komen_for_the_Cure on educational activities promoting physical activity and proper nutrition, 3% on mammography screening and tools hundreds of times less efficient than 3D-CBS, and 36% on administrative expenses) was a mistake because it failed to defeat cancer, while Crosetto’s calculations, reported in his 2000 book (goo.gl/ggGGwF), have been successfully confirmed experimentally on a Chinese copy of his 3D-CBS, albeit less efficient and significantly more expensive, making it unsuitable for life-saving screening.”

Since 2007, Crosetto notes, the Komen Foundation, specifically oriented towards fighting breast cancer, has raised billions of dollars. However, during these years, breast cancer mortality in Italy increased from 12,760 in 2016 (https://bit.ly/3JSOdjw) to 15,500 in 2022 (https://bit.ly/3wyMXyX) and their President received an annual salary of $888,164 in 2023, $682,520 in 2022, etc. (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/751835298). In contrast, the average annual salary of a medical doctor working in an Italian hospital is $45,000 (https://bit.ly/3YgImNb).

Crosetto manages a nonprofit foundation in the United States and Italy, and since 1999, he has not received a salary, yet continues to perform pioneering work in the field, engaging with colleagues at major scientific conferences. Information about the Crosetto Foundation to End Premature Cancer Deaths, including financial details, which has received the Gold Seal for Transparency for eight consecutive years from GuideStar.org, is available at https://www.guidestar.org/profile/03-0544575

The increase in breast cancer mortality in Italy, despite a reduction in population, demonstrates that the millions of euros raised from Italian donors have not been effectively utilized by Susan G. Komen-Italia.

Crosetto observes:

«The Komen Prevention Caravan traveling around Italy seems more like a tool for fundraising propaganda, but it does not impact the reduction of premature breast cancer mortality.

Even if Komen would change the way they spend 51% of the funds on educational activities and adopt a better, more comprehensive, and more effective strategy in educating Italians about proper nutrition and increased physical activity, there are experimental results showing that this would not significantly reduce premature cancer mortality».

5. Why Invest in a Strategy Known from the Start to Be Ineffective Against Cancer?

Crosetto continues:

«The results proving the ineffectiveness of Komen’s claim to eradicate breast cancer with their strategy exist, as observed in the cancer mortality data in the state of Utah, USA, where the majority of the population is composed of Mormons. These individuals follow very strict rules for a healthy lifestyle and proper nutrition, abstaining from coffee, wine, any alcoholic beverages, smoking, etc.

It would be a difficult task for anyone to convince Italians not to consume coffee and alcoholic beverages, nevertheless, even if Komen succeeded in changing their educational propaganda, the experimental data on cancer deaths in Utah, where the majority are Mormons, do not show a 98% survival rate as early detection of breast cancer does.

Why do Komen’s executives choose a strategy with a very low survival rate for their educational propaganda, which in Italy even increased mortality from 12,670 to 15,500 in six years, and suppress early detection that experimental results show achieves a 98% survival rate?».

6. Why Has Funding Experimentation for Crosetto’s 3D-CBS Invention Been Suppressed for 24 Years? Proven Effective for Early Cancer Detection, it Could Save Millions of Lives and Reduce Costs

The Italian scientist’s challenge: “Let’s approve the experimentation of my 3D-CBS invention (3-D Complete Body Screening), a device that can save at least half of the patients who receive an early cancer detection.”

Experimental data have confirmed for decades that early cancer detection saves lives in over 90% of cases. Calculations and scientific evidence that have remained unchallenged for 24 years demonstrate that the 3D-CBS offers an early diagnosis capable of detecting tumors with only 100 cancer cells in all organs of the body, through a safe 2-minute screening test costing only $200 (https://bit.ly/3ova8Tz).

Crosetto has built the innovative parts of his invention in hardware circuits, demonstrating their feasibility and functionality (goo.gl/RiIn0B). He has 59 quotes from companies capable of building the components of the 3D-CBS and has a business plan to assemble two 3D-CBS devices with a team of 16 professionals in 18-24 months. It would take just $20 million, or 0.1% of Italy’s annual Defense budget, to save over 400 of its employees every year and experimentally demonstrate that it can halve premature mortality, with the potential to save over 13,000 lives worldwide every day.

His inventions have been approved by eminent scientists, a Nobel Prize laureate, the Director of Fermilab, Division Directors and Group Leaders of CERN, the inventor of the pocket calculator, and dozens of others who have written letters available at: https://crosettofoundation.org/testimonials/. They have been examined and approved in various international and public scientific reviews.

His basic invention, 3D-Flow, was formally and officially recognized as a breakthrough by FERMILAB (goo.gl/zP76Tc). He was immediately awarded $150,000, followed by an additional million dollars to demonstrate its feasibility. Crosetto successfully completed this task, presenting the results in a 45-page peer-reviewed article by a single author in 1999 (goo.gl/bqhD4R).

Why during the past two decades a minute fraction (0.00000067) of the $30 trillion spent on R&D and billions of dollars raised from cancer organizations such as Susan G. Komen did not fund Crosetto’s experimentation of his 3D-CBS invention which could have saved millions of lives, that no one refuted to be hundreds of times more efficient than current 10.000 PET (Positron Emission Tomography) devices?

a) Prejudice, superficial answer 1: “…is not a good idea…”

A superficial response, tainted by prejudice, from people, who automatically trust leaders in the field and side with them against an independent inventor, might be: “…if funding for experimentation was not provided to Crosetto for two decades, perhaps it is because his idea was not valuable”.

However, the fact that Sant’Orsola Policlinic in Bologna, within the Emilia Romagna Region of Italy, purchased in 2024 (https://bit.ly/4bTT1By) a less efficient Chinese commercial copy of the 3D-CBS called EXPLORER for €21 million, proves the statement above false.

Furthermore, it is outrageous that after healthcare leaders in the Emilia Romagna Region, including the Italian President of Nuclear Medicine, and national experts in the field (see details in Section 8.b) learned in meetings with Crosetto in 2008 that his original 3D-CBS invention would provide superior performance for research studies and for screening to save lives at a commercial cost of only €3.5 million, they still chose to pay €21 million for the Chinese copy EXPLORER, which is limited to research purposes and is unsuitable for saving many lives. This is confirmed on the website of the Sant’Orsola Hospital, stating: “The new device …offers unique opportunities for research and development in oncology, particularly in the field of radiopharmaceuticals”

This claim is irrefutable, because scientific evidence is clearly documented in a 42-page article that details the dialogue between Crosetto and Italian healthcare leaders, published in their journal (https://bit.ly/3URkSLh).

By purchasing the €21 million EXPLORER, the leaders of the Sant’Orsola’s hospital in Bologna effectively recanted all the claims made by influential scientists in Reggio Emilia Region, which were used to reject such a device in 2009. Section 8.b highlights a few statements from the publication (https://bit.ly/3URkSLh) that have since been contradicted.

The burden on Italians is not only in denying the possibility of saving many lives with a device unsuitable for screening while paying €21 million instead of €3.5 million, but also in the ongoing costs: every year Italians will have to pay approximately €1 million in maintenance fees for the Chinese copy EXPLORER, instead of the €100,000 for the commercial version of the 3D-CBS.

Furthermore, the national leaders who decided to spend €21 million to purchase the EXPLORER did not heed the lesson of late Nobel Prize winner, Prof. Abdus Salam, former Director of the International Center for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy, who chose to teach advanced technology to senior physicists and engineers in developing countries to avoid their dependence from the industrialized countries that detain the technology (See details in Section 8.b). In the current case, the absurdity of spending €21 million on a less efficient copy of the 3D-CBS is even more glaring because the inventor of the original technology is the Italian-American scientist Crosetto.

Despite the scientific evidence that Crosetto has been correct for the past three decades, and now his claims are agreed by other renowned scientists in the field, influential scientists continue to promote competitions and awards focused on developing picosecond electronics for PET, which emphasize spatial resolution. This focus serves the cancer business by tracking the effects of chemotherapy drugs in the body rather than funding Crosetto to build the 3D-CBS which can experimentally demonstrate that each machine can save over 260 lives per year through early cancer detection combine with prompt treatment.

Leaders at the Sant’Orsola Hospital, who spent €21 million on the EXPLORER while ignoring scientific evidence and the 42-page article published in their journal documenting the discussion between Crosetto and influential Italian scientists in the field of PET, will eventually realize that they cannot boast about making the best deal by purchasing the most expensive machine —the first in Europe. This is because United Imaging Healthcare has already built another PET machine with a 148 cm detector length called uMi Panorama GS, which matches the detector length in Crosetto’s 2000 book (goo.gl/ggGGwF). UIH has also copied features of Crosetto’s ASIC, as described in Section 8.e, which continues to increase efficiency and reduce costs.

As time progresses UIH engineers, by coping his ideas are increasingly recognizing that Crosetto’s 3D-CBS design is more logical, scientific and cost-effective, leading them to adopt more of his ideas and designs while moving away from the illogical instructions they received from the American influential scientists (https://bit.ly/3vk81UE) who commissioned the construction of the 2-meter EXPLORER, which has not proven viable for large scale production.

UIH is gradually shifting toward Crosetto’s 3D-CBS design, as described in his 2000 book (goo.gl/ggGGwF). However, they are still adopting his innovative features to serve the cancer business by tracking chemotherapy drug effects in the body rather than serving cancer patients with a cost-effective early detection device.

As detailed in Section 8.e, Crosetto does not have millions of dollars to pay attorneys to seek compensation for patent infringement, which would allow him to build two units of his 3D-CBS and experimentally prove that each machine can save over 260 lives per year through a cost-effective early cancer detection combined with prompt existing successful treatments.

However, one must ask: how many lives have been needlessly lost and continue to be lost because influential scientists in the field have suppressed transparency at IEEE Conferences, have suppressed Crosetto’s presentations and articles, and driven and continue to drive research in this field in the wrong direction?

Given that there are already PET machines less expensive providing more performance than their €21 million EXPLORER —and that could be further reduced to €3.5 million with the more efficient 3D-CBS —media outlets should expose the poor decision made by Sant’Orsola Hospital and the additional burden placed on taxpayers, who must now cover a €1 million annual maintenance fee. Instead of celebrating this as a European achievement, the media should highlight that Sant’Orsola Hospital’s purchase of the EXPLORER appears to be a misuse of taxpayer money on a machine that is unsuitable for screening and saving many lives. Furthermore, the EXPLORER is already surpassed by other machines and by the 3D-CBS design from 24 years ago (goo.gl/ggGGwF) that offers higher efficiency and lower costs for research purposes.

b) Prejudice and superficial answer 2: “…industries and institutions are better than Crosetto…”

Another superficial response, tainted by prejudice, occurs when people automatically trust leaders, industries, and institutions without verifying their claims. For example, as discussed in item 6.c, people believed in the “spaghetti harvest” from trees because it was stated by a reputable source like the BBC. Similarly, on 12^th May 2024, 150,000 people in Rome believed that the healthy lifestyle promoted by Susan G. Komen significantly reduces premature breast cancer deaths simply because it was endorsed by reputable institutions, despite the increase in breast cancer deaths in Italy within a declining population. For the sake of convenience and to avoid personal responsibility, people often side with leaders, industries, and institutions against independent inventors. A possible superficial and prejudice justification for not funding Crosetto’s experimentation might be: “…leaders in the field have more experience than Crosetto. Industries manufacturing PET devices have better know-how than Crosetto in building electronics, detectors, and software…”

However, facts prove also this statement to be false. Here are some:

Crosetto has worked at the world’s leading research laboratories, collaborating for 20 years on experiments at CERN (Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire) and holding the position of “Scientific Associate” at CERN before being invited, in 1991, to work at the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) in Texas, where he still resides today.

He has been part of research teams and has given seminars, as well as presented papers at international conferences, research centers, and universities in various countries, including Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland, Portugal, the United States, Canada, Japan, Colombia, Mexico, Argentina, Ghana, Sri Lanka, and China. He has also held seminars on Medical Imaging at the top university hospitals and cancer research centers in Italy and Geneva, Switzerland.

Crosetto has designed cutting-edge instrumentation, competing with physics experiment projects worth millions and billions of dollars at various world research laboratories (CERN, SSC, FERMILAB, BNL -Brookhaven National Laboratory-, DESY, Saclay, etc.), as well as for other applications with extremely demanding requirements for pattern recognition of objects detected in hundreds of nanoseconds, analyzing data from thousands of electronic channels at over 20 terabytes per second.

His inventions have been recognized as innovative discoveries by an international committee of experts from academia, industry, and major research centers during a highly significant, public, formal, and official scientific review held at FERMILAB in Chicago (goo.gl/zP76Tc).

His subsequent inventions and research have been approved and supported by funding requests contained in dozens of letters signed by leading experts in the field, including a Nobel Prize winner, directors, division heads, and group leaders from the world’s most important research centers (CERN, FERMILAB, BNL, etc.), by emeritus professors from prestigious universities and hospitals, by Jerry Merryman, the inventor of the pocket calculator, who wrote three letters of support (one handwritten), and by Silvio Turrini, the inventor of the first 400 MHz microprocessor. Twenty-two letters from these experts are available in their original version at https://crosettofoundation.org/testimonials/

Author of five books and over 100 articles, Crosetto holds several patents. He is recognized as one of the world’s leading experts in the design, construction, and testing of instrumentation coupled with particle detectors that accurately detect all possible valid signals extracted from radiation, both in high-energy physics experiments and in medical imaging devices, at the lowest cost per valid signal captured. These recognitions are based on concrete facts, not on publicity or hype.

1989 – When hired by CERN as a “Scientific Associate” in 1989-90, Crosetto designed and built the FDPP (https://bit.ly/2CX6CfY) modular electronic boards which implemented a parallel-processing architecture suitable for maintaining the focus of the beam of the Super Proton Synchrotron accelerator at CERN. These boards also provided physicists with a powerful tool for executing a programmable level-2 Trigger to detect unknown particles.

This electronic board was unprecedented in the industry at the time in terms of complexity, performance, and compactness, as evidenced by the photograph (https://bit.ly/2CX6CfY), where it is clear that it would have been impossible to add other components or through-holes in the printed circuit. After building it, Crosetto invited the student Stefano Buono from the University of Torino, Italy, to help him test it. Stefano Buono later founded a company and became a billionaire after just 15 years, when he sold his company for $4 billion.

1990 – Crosetto’s experience in using different microprocessors earned him the title of the world’s expert in the use of DSPs (Digital Signal Processors) in High Energy Physics applications, and he was invited to lecture at the CERN School of Computing (https://bit.ly/3h2IjLB) (https://bit.ly/46LQoz4).

1991 – His practical expertise in electronics, parallel-processing, particle detection, and his creative approach to solving challenging problems were highly sought after, leading to several months of solicitation before he accepted a job offer at the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) to design the Level-1 Trigger (https://bit.ly/40gEwTg) for the half-billion dollar GEM (Gamma Electron and Muon) experiment of the $11 billion SSC project.

1992 – Within a year, Crosetto invented the 3D-Flow system architecture, a versatile solution that transcended specific technologies and can be implemented in the newest technologies preserving its advantages over time. It addressed the challenges faced by High Energy Physics (HEP) experiments by offering a powerful, cost-effective, and programmable Level-1 trigger applicable to any experiment.

The 3D-Flow system is particularly valuable for applications requiring in-depth data analysis over extended periods, even when data arrived at high speeds with new packets every few nanoseconds. Its capability to perform programmable data analysis for a duration longer than the interval between two consecutive data packages significantly increases efficiency in extracting valuable data from radiation.

This capability is crucial for discovering new particles in physics applications and for detecting minimal biophysiological anomalies in Medical Imaging applications, including offering a cost-effective early cancer detection solution.

This invention disrupted the status quo, replacing traditional cable-logic systems that were rigid, expensive, and limited in their capabilities. The potential of 3D-Flow was recognized by the leadership of the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), who endorsed Crosetto for its presentation at four prominent international scientific conferences held across Europe and the US within a single month (https://bit.ly/46SXrpC).

1993 – His invention was recognized as a breakthrough in an official and formal major public scientific review that lasted an entire day, attended by hundreds of scientists at the FERMILAB auditorium. A panel of experts from academia, industry, and research centers (including a representative from CERN) reviewed the details of the invention, questioning Crosetto in several meetings through the day. As a result, Crosetto was immediately awarded $150,000. (The final official report at goo.gl/zP76Tc stated: “given this feature, experimenters would probably think of clever uses not now possible...”)

1995-98 – Crosetto’s 3D-Flow system was adopted by the collaboration of the CERN-LHCb experiment (https://bit.ly/3u0d0x8).

1995 – After receiving a few $100,000 grants from funding agencies such as the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), DOE, etc., Crosetto was awarded a $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to conduct a feasibility study of his 3D-Flow invention. He demonstrated his competence, leadership, and ability to make the most of the $1 million by leading a team of three recent university graduates, hiring as consultants the best leading companies in the field such as Synopsys, and purchasing the best tools from Cadence.

1999 – Crosetto successfully completed the feasibility study of the innovative 3D-Flow system, which was published in a unique 45-page peer-reviewed article by a single author in a prestigious scientific journal (goo.gl/bqhD4R).

2000 – Crosetto invented the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening), described in a book “400⁺times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening” (goo.gl/ggGGwF) that he distributed free of charge to 200 of his colleagues at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in Lyon, France (see also video https://bit.ly/31CLuG7). He also patented the technology to accelerate patient benefits by protecting investments from interested industries.

The ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS technology (an advanced PET/CT) based on the 3D-Flow invention for particle detection, is targeted to significantly reduce cancer deaths and healthcare costs and is the first true paradigm change in biomedical imaging because it offers four advantages no other device can offer simultaneously:

effective early detection of anomalous biological processes and diseases such as cancer at a highly curable stage, including improved diagnosis, prognosis, and effective monitoring of treatments, capable of detecting tumors with fewer than 100 cancer cells, before they grow to 1,000,000 cells (contained in a 1 mm tumor) detectable by CT, MRI, Mammogram, and Ultrasound;
a radiation dose that is just 2.5% of that used by current PET devices;
a 2-minute effective screening examination covering all organs of the body; and
a very low examination cost that is less expensive and more effective, potentially replacing mammograms, PAP tests, colonoscopies, PSA tests, and others.

2001 – Crosetto’s funding ceased when he proposed Low-Cost Cancer Screening, which was also the title of his 2000 book “400⁺times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening” (goo.gl/ggGGwF). All his $100,000 grant proposals, aimed at increasing PET sensitivity for cost-effective screening, submitted to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), were rejected (see references pp. 41-42 of http://bit.ly/2QdgdTx).

Reviewers from NIH, NSF, DOE, and other agencies advised him to modify his application to focus on high spatial resolution, which serves the cancer business, rather than Crosetto’s goal of saving lives. He received explicit instructions from several leaders not to mention screening. For example, in writing, Laurence Clarke from the National Cancer Institute (NIH-NCI) wrote to Crosetto: “…do not make claims on any screening application” and “…not get into the specific of screening…” (see references pp. 27-28 of http://bit.ly/2QdgdTx).

2001 – Stefano Buono, a former student invited by Crosetto to CERN in 1989 to assist in testing the FDPP board, and in 2002 founded Advanced Accelerator Applications, which he sold on 22 January 2018 for $3.9 billion, wrote an excellent review of Crosetto’s book on Amazon (https://bit.ly/3jkorLt) and organized a talk for Crosetto at CERN which he delivered at the University of Geneva.

The CERN Bulletin announced (https://bit.ly/3rGqmtH) Crosetto’s seminar: “Saving lives through early cancer detection: Breaking the current PET efficiency barrier with the 3D-CBS” held on 10 May 2001, at the University of Geneva. The seminar was attended by many CERN scientists who applauded his innovations. www.3d-computing.com/pb/3d-cbs.pdf.

2001 – Crosetto gave the first demonstration of his invention using FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) circuits at the 2001 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in San Diego, California. Participants could select a pattern of input data on switches, observe on LEDs if the 3D-Flow system detected the cluster, and verify the speed on an oscilloscope.

2002 – Siemens, the largest manufacturer of PET devices, expressed interest in Crosetto’s book on 3D-CBS (goo.gl/ggGGwF) and requested a meeting with Siemens’ President of Nuclear Medicine and PET Director on 6 November 2006, which lasted an entire day at Crosetto’s location in Texas. In recorded meetings, Crosetto demonstrated his competence and the superiority of his ideas and inventions compared to Siemens’ PET devices. This competence and superiority were further confirmed in subsequent meetings with Siemens’ Director of Advanced Research and Director of Electronics.

Ultimately, Crosetto’s competence and superiority of his inventions was demonstrated practically by the increase of Siemens’ PET efficiency by 70% of their PET with short detectors (FOV -Field Of View), after these meetings (https://bit.ly/3hp68z3).

However, Siemens’ marketing department refused to extend the FOV beyond 1 meter in 2002 to increase PET efficiency by several hundred times and save lives as Crosetto had proposed.

They only increased the detector length to 1 meter in 2020 when their PET market was threatened by the 2-meter FOV Chinese copy of the 3D-CBS. Nevertheless, Siemens’ 1-meter FOV is still primarily targeted at serving the cancer business and cannot save many lives.

2003 – The first demonstrator of hardware modular electronic boards, designed and developed by Crosetto at his own expenses, showcasing the feasibility and functionality of building 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS systems for detectors of any size was presented at the 2003 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in Portland, Oregon, and published in their proceedings (goo.gl/RiIn0B).

The 3D-Flow DAQ-DSP IBM PC modular board features 68x 3D-Flow processors, and 2,211 components, over 20,000 contact pins connected through only 8 layers of printed circuit board for signals and 6 layers for power and ground.

Crosetto designed the entire board, entering the schematics using Concept HDL from Cadence, and handed them to three companies in Dallas, all of which had experience solving complex problems for Texas Instruments, Alcatel, and other major clients, to convert the schematic into a printed circuit. All three returned the project, with one charging $5,000, claiming that it was impossible to connect 20,000 contact pins in 8 layers for signals and 6 for power and ground which is the limit for the thickness of an IBM PC edge connector.

Crosetto then purchased the Allegro PCB layout program from Cadence and Spectra for automatic signal routing. He then hired a student, gave instructions to manually route all data buses, and assigned the control signals to the Spectra automatic router, successfully connecting all 20,000 signals. The 68x 3D-Flow processors were housed in 17 large FPGAs from Altera, each with 4x 3D-Flow processors.

The board and the system worked on the first prototype, and the signals transmitted over LVDS connections provided stability and noise immunity to the system even when several signals switched simultaneously.

2003 – A public scientific review of Crosetto’s inventions was conducted by a panel of world experts who met in Dallas, Texas, and were joined via webcast by other experts from around the world. These experts had studied Crosetto’s research and were tasked with reviewing the details of the hardware built, proving the functionality of his inventions and the feasibility of a cost-effective full-scale 3D-CBS device.

The international review panel was chaired by Dr. Frank Guy, a senior scientist with experience at U.S. National Laboratories (LBL, Los Alamos, SSC), and included experts in physics, the director of a PET medical imaging center, a scientist from the Observatory of Geneva, Switzerland expert in photons, and electronics experts from Texas Instruments, including Jerry Merryman, co-inventor of the pocket calculator, and a vice-president of the world’s fifth-largest semiconductor company, as well as two oncologists. The review was monitored by a senior attorney (https://bit.ly/48fdjEc) from Jones Day, one of the largest law firms with offices in five continents. The report for this review is available at (https://bit.ly/3yGG0Ns, or https://bit.ly/3i9xCJ9).

Here are a few comments extracted from the reviewers’ report: “Crosetto has done an excellent job of implementing his ideas and in designing the electronics, given his limited economic resources. No error or fault could be found with his claims for the expected performance of the 3D-CBS”.

The Vice-President of the world’s fifth-largest semiconductor company stated: “I am impressed by the level of quality of the work performed by Dario Crosetto in the various areas of the 3D-CBS, despite his limited economical and manpower resources. If I take for example the “photon detection board” that he built, I was impressed that Crosetto designed and build it with only $20,000 per board in 20 full programmable very large FPGA. In my experience in the industry the design, development, construction and debug of electronic boards of this magnitude and complexity is normally the work of a team of engineers costing hundreds of thousand of dollars, Crosetto did it all by himself achieving the objectives. Building the prototype board in FPGA was the right approach enabling, in the future, to an easy coast effective migration to a considerable lower cost board using “Hard Copy” or ASIC technology”.

Additionally comments included: “After following Crosetto’s work for quite sometime, I came to realize that what he claims, although sometime it is a very unknown and a risky novel approach, such as the challenge of routing the connection of 20,000 pins in only 8 PCB layers of an IBM PC board, turn to be feasible. He delivers what promise, and the quality of his work follows the most stringent requirements, and satisfies the highest quality in terms of using the most advanced technology, reliable tools, manufacturers and assembly techniques during its implementation”.

2003-07 – ICATPP Scientific Conferences invited Crosetto to present on the illogical choice of PET technology focused on taking ʺbeautifulʺ pictures, which do not save lives. Nevertheless, dominant scientists continue to suppress logical reasoning (https://bit.ly/3Qitto3)

2004 – In July and November 2004, Crosetto formally and officially presented his 3D-CBS invention to the Italian Superior Institute of Health. Influential leaders and reviewers claimed that a PET detector longer than 25 cm (FOV) was unnecessary because the largest organ is only 15 cm. They also made several other claims, such as that a 400-times more efficient PET device was neither advantageous nor necessary, ultimately rejecting funding for the 3D-CBS.

All these rejection claims have since been proven wrong by experimental results. Italian leaders and influential scientists in the field effectively recanted their claims when, on 20^th May 2024, Sant’Orsola Hospital in Bologna installed a Chinese copy less efficient than the 3D-CBS for €21 million, while they could have acquired the 3D-CBS for €3.5 million (based on its components costing less than €2 million).

2007 – On July 3, 2007, volunteers from Susan G. Komen, who believe in the goal of contributing to the defeat of cancer, organized a meeting between Crosetto and two prominent scientists at the Susan G. Komen Foundation headquarters in Dallas, Texas.

These two expert scientists were unable to refute the calculations in Crosetto’s 2000 book (goo.gl/ggGGwF) and subsequent articles (video: https://bit.ly/31CLuG7), which demonstrated that his 3D-CBS invention is 400 times more efficient than the 3,000 PET (Positron Emission Tomography) devices available at the time.

A Susan G. Komen scientist stated: “This is fascinating, if we can have better screening, this is what we need, and we know that!” and continued: “Thank you so much and keep up with the good work, people like you will change the world!”. However, Komen’s executives chose to suppress experimentation of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention without providing any calculations or scientific evidence to refute his claims.

2008 – After verifying Crosetto’s calculations, claims, inventions, and research on particle detection in a meeting with the former CERN Director of Research Horst Wenninger and other experts in the field at CERN in March 2008, Prof. Antonino Zichichi invited Crosetto in August 2008 to the World Lab, Ettore Majorana Center in Erice, Italy, to present to Nobel Laureates in a seminar on “Planetary Emergencies” the illogical choices made by dominant scientists. Zichichi later published Crosetto’s seminar through World Scientific. (http://bit.ly/2WbVAYS).

2008 – Crosetto delivered similar presentations at CERN, which were broadcast worldwide through the EVO system. In the same year, he also presented his work to radiologists and doctors in Canada, and to cancer centers in Italy, including the Hospital Regina Elena in Rome, the Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori in Milan, the Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano, and the Arcispedale Maggiore in Reggio Emilia. An extensive discussion with the President of Italy of Nuclear and Biomolecular Medicine culminated in a 42-page article published in their magazine, detailing the discussion between Crosetto and the Italian leader of PET. (https://bit.ly/3URkSLh).

2008 – The General Chairman of the 2008 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference, Prof. Uwe Bratzler, attempted to promote transparency in science. He sought to hold reviewers who rejected Crosetto’s papers at the conference accountable for their statements by encouraging them to disclose their names and take responsibility. He also tried to organize a public scientific review of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention at CERN, but was ultimately unsuccessful due to resistance from dominant scientists who refused. The chronicle of these events is available in a document at this link (https://bit.ly/3rcaaUS).

2009 – Crosetto was invited by Ralph James, Associate Director of Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), to give a seminar on his inventions and the 3D-CBS application in Medical Imaging to the physics and bioengineering groups at BNL. The seminar was also attended by Joanna Fowler, who had just received the National Medal of Science from President Barack Obama. The entire seminar, including the Q&A session, was videorecorded. The superiority of Crosetto’s approaches and inventions in terms of higher efficiency, flexibility, and lower cost was unrefuted and applauded.

2010 – Crosetto submitted articles on PET technology focused on measuring biophysiology, co-signed by 1000 people, to the “Physics for Health” conference at CERN. However, CERN awarded a prize to the expensive “Axial-PET” project, which prioritized taking “beautiful” high-resolution pictures to the detriment of high sensitivity necessary for accurate biophysiological measurements at low radiation and low cost. (https://bit.ly/3QElGCn).

2011 – Crosetto received the Leonardo da Vinci Prize for early cancer diagnosis (https://bit.ly/49ior3x).

2013 – Crosetto submitted a 32-page article to the IEEE Conference detailing how the 3D-CBS works and why the EXPLORER cannot reduce cancer deaths and costs (goo.gl/qpnNxd).

2014 – Following a request for a meeting with NIH Director Francis Collins, on 11 December 2014, Crosetto had an in-person meeting with Anne Lubenow, the assistant to the NCI Director. Lubenow promised to continue discussions with leaders in the field on the crucial topic of how we could have already, and how we can in the future, significantly reduce cancer deaths and costs (https://bit.ly/3OLCfLF).

She committed to organizing a meeting with experts in medical imaging and those specializing in evaluating and planning strategies to maximize the reduction of cancer deaths and costs. She also agreed to review Crosetto’s proposed screening test to measure the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of any approach aimed at significantly reducing cancer deaths and costs.

However, this meeting or conference call was never organized, and the following year, NIH awarded a $15.5 million grant to scientists who refused transparency and the meeting. NIH funded $15.5 million for the EXPLORER project (https://bit.ly/3vk81UE) which essentially copied the essence of what Crosetto had written in the book he gave Lubenow. The discussion on measuring the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of any approach was never accepted, and the EXPLORER remains limited to research, unsuitable for significantly reducing cancer deaths and costs (See pp. 29-30 of http://bit.ly/2QdgdTx).

2015 – Crosetto submitted a 271-page proposal, supported by 59 quotes from reputable companies, to build the components for Level-1 Trigger in High Energy Physics experiments and the 3D-CBS in medical imaging applications (goo.gl/w3XlZ1). However, it was not funded.

The scientists (https://bit.ly/3vk81UE) who had refused transparency in science by refusing a meeting with Crosetto at the NIH funding agency the previous year, submitted a copy of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS, called EXPLORER, and received $15.5 million without presenting a viable plan to build its components or a roadmap demonstrating its impact in reducing cancer deaths and costs for taxpayers.

Crosetto, who had submitted a viable plan (goo.gl/w3XlZ1) to build the 3D-CBS and a roadmap (https://bit.ly/3ova8Tz) detailing its benefits to taxpayers through reducing cancer deaths and costs, was neither scientifically refuted nor funded.

Lacking the expertise to build it, the recipients of the grant (https://bit.ly/3vk81UE) gave the U.S. taxpayer money they received from NIH to the Chinese company United Imaging Healthcare to copy the invention of the Italian-American scientist Crosetto (goo.gl/EJD9yU).

Moreover, they modified the construction plan they had presented to receive the $15.5 million grant by copying Crosetto’s features but instructed the Chinese company to use these innovative features to focus on spatial resolution, creating “beautiful” pictures that serve the cancer business, instead of prioritizing Crosetto’s objective of high sensitivity and low cost to save lives through cost-effective early cancer detection screening

2018 – On 19 November 2018, Crosetto gave a presentation at the headquarters of the Chinese company United Imaging Healthcare in Shanghai, which had copied his 3D-CBS invention. During the meeting, he received the first admission that they had copied the feature of neighboring data exchange in their ASIC.

2020 – Crosetto submitted a 147-page review article to a leading scientific journal in Medical Imaging titled: “3D-CBS: The first true paradigm change in biomedical imaging invented 20 years ago, confirmed by measured results as able to provide a safe, very early, lifesaving cancer detection. Why hasn’t it been funded? Why is screening denied? Who is responsible for millions of needless deaths?” (http://bit.ly/2QdgdTx).

The article provides irrefutable historical data, calculations, and scientific evidence of the correct approach to reducing cancer deaths and costs, leading to advancements in Medical Imaging that offer doctors a powerful, non-invasive, and safe tool for understanding anomalous biological processes. It also exposes the flaws in another review article by colleagues who are driving PET research in the wrong direction, focusing on high spatial resolution with smaller detectors rather than measuring biophysiology with devices of high sensitivity.

The editor-in-chief of the journal did not refute any of Crosetto’s calculations and claims, nor did she provide any reason for not accepting Crosetto’s request to withdraw the review article by colleagues that is steering Medical Imaging research in the wrong direction. However, she did not review, nor published Crosetto’s review paper and did not withdrew the paper driving research in the wrong direction.

2021 – Since 1995, Crosetto has consistently advocated, through seminars and articles, for the proper use of PET technology with a focus on sensitivity rather than spatial resolution. In 2021, other scientists, including Prof. Iwao Kanno, keynote speaker at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference, echoed this view. Kanno’s presentation included the first and last slides of his talk, titled “Take home message”, with the statement, “The goal of PET is to measure biophysiology, not to take beautiful picture” This emphasizes the importance of measuring sensitivity over spatial resolution. (See pages 14-15 of https://bit.ly/3K9zRKX).

2023 – The Italian-American scientist Dario Crosetto began communicating with the Italian Government via certified email in February 2023 (https://bit.ly/3IRnBiQ), including communication with the President of Italy, Honorable Sergio Mattarella, who is the commander-in-chief of the Italian Armed Forces and chair of the High Council of the Judiciary.

On 25 April 2023, in Cuneo, Italy, Crosetto hand-delivered a two-page letter (https://bit.ly/3pfXKKt) to President Mattarella, proposing that 0.1% of the Defense budget be allocated to build two 3D-CBS devices. These devices would screen 300,000 Italian Defense employees per year at higher risk of cancer, with the aim of proving experimentally that can save over 400 lives annually from premature cancer deaths.

Following this communication, the Minister of Defense, Honorable Guido Crosetto, requested that the Ministry of Defense organize a meeting on 4 July 2023, at the Military Policlinic in Rome between the inventor of the 3D-CBS and the highest scientific authority in the defense sector.

In a report dated 29 November 2023, written by the Ministry of Defense’s scientific expert, the calculations, logical reasoning, and benefits of Crosetto’s invention were not refuted with calculations or scientific evidence, therefore remained unchallenged. However, despite this, funding Crosetto to build two 3D-CBS devices for experimentation, which could save lives, was not provided, and 400 Defense employees continue to die needlessly each year.

2023 – On 5^th July 2023, scientists Crosetto communicated with the Pontifical Academy of Science (PAS) and had a one-hour meeting at the Vatican in Rome with the Secretary of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development. As a result of these communications, Crosetto was invited to prepare a document for the 20 September 2023, Council meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Science.

He prepared and submitted the document on 31^st August 2023 and updated the appendix on 18 September 2023, addressing it to the PAS President and Council members, none of whom refuted his calculations or claims.

Crosetto’s document (https://bit.ly/3qii6Dv) was included in the PAS Council agenda of 20 September 2023. However, the PAS President (https://bit.ly/3PFwpLk) stated: “….we do not have the capacity to hold another cancer related conference next year, not before 2025”. This document was made public and Crosetto also sent it to leaders at CERN, IEEE, and healthcare systems.

2023 – At the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference, a researcher from the Chinese company United Imaging Healthcare presented a slide confirming that they had copied one feature of Crosetto’s invention. (See more details in Section 8.f).

2024 – On 25 April 2024, scientist Dario Crosetto returned to the event commemorating the liberation of Italy, this time in Civitella, chosen by President of Italy Honorable Mattarella and attended by the Italian Minister of Defense Honorable Guido Crosetto to honor the 244 victims of the Nazi Mass Killing in 1944.

As in the previous year, before publicly distributing his two-page open letter (https://bit.ly/3QbTLt4), which also honored the 400 military and 90,000 Italian victims of the Mass Killing from cancer who could be saved each year, Crosetto sent a draft via certified email to the President of Italy, the Italian Government, and 60,000 Carabinieri, requesting that they identify any words or sentences that might be illegitimate or unlawful and need to be removed.

No remarks were made about the letter. Crosetto was greeted in the square of Civitella by the Carabinieri, Police, Questore of Arezzo, and a representative of the Office of the President, who allowed him to distribute his open letter. They met Crosetto again at the end of the ceremony and commented that he must have been satisfied as he had distributed all 500 copies of his open letter in the small town. The representative from the Office of the President also took a copy of the letter in English and promised to relay its content to Honorable Sergio Mattarella.

In the following days, scientist Crosetto wrote a report of the event (https://bit.ly/3WsjuRC) praising the speeches of each speaker: the President, the Mayor of Civitella, the President of the Tuscany Region, and others, particularly the historian who highlighted the work of the Prosecutor who identified the defendant guilty of the Mass Killing.

Crosetto’s observation in his report, that if many hours were spent investigating and bringing to justice those responsible for the Mass Killing of 244 civilians in 1944, it would be logical for the Government to spend time and money to investigate and bring to justice those responsible for the Mass Killing from cancer of 250 Italians per day, knowing that they could be saved, led to the filing of a case in the Tribunal of Cuneo. This case was filed without Crosetto’s knowledge or involvement.

However, the judge handling the case decided to archive it without providing any justification. When Crosetto was notified that the case was archived, he went to the Tribunal of Cuneo and requested a meeting with the judge, who kindly agreed. After Crosetto’s brief presentation on the importance of the case, the judge granted him the opportunity to submit additional evidence and reopened the case. Crosetto was pleased with this decision, and the material in this document could assist in the investigation to identify the defendants.

2024 – Regarding the Susan G. Komen event planned for 12 May 2024 in Rome, Crosetto, who had a meeting on 3 July 2007 with two expert scientists from Susan G. Komen at their headquarters in Dallas—where they stated: “…if we can have better screening, this is what we need, and we know that!” —felt compelled to attend the “Race for the Cure” in Rome to inform the Italian authorities and citizens about the truth and how they had been deceived.

Komen’s executives are fully aware that their 41-year strategy to reduce premature breast cancer deaths is not working.

They know what methods are effective in reducing cancer deaths but have deliberately suppressed discussions about and experimentation with more cost-effective screening methods that their scientists, and they themselves, knew would work.

This is because implementing the most cost-effective screening methods would hinder their ability to continue fundraising while promising donors that they would achieve the goal of reducing breast cancer deaths. Crosetto felt it was his duty to inform the Italian organizers, the authorities who endorsed Komen’s initiative, and the 150,000 Italians who were being deceived.

As with his previous open letters, Crosetto’s intention was not to defame anyone but rather to protect everyone from being deceived and harmed by false advertisements by providing facts, documents, and scientific evidence that reveal the truth.

Before making his open letter (https://bit.ly/4byXOry) public, he sent a draft via certified email to the Italian and American Komen organizers of the event, the Italian President, Government, healthcare leaders, and to 60,000 Carabinieri who endorsed or were involved in supporting the event.

No objections to the letter were raised. On 12 May 2024, Crosetto displayed his poster at the event on a 3-meter pole, passed under the “Race for the Cure” arch, stood for a few minutes in front of the stages of the authorities and organizers, and distributed hundreds of copies of the open letter, as can be seen in the photos in Sections 10.a and 10.b.

After four hours of distributing the open letter in Italian (https://bit.ly/3wwmDFC), when the “Race for the Cure” ended and people gathered at the Open Village of the event, Crosetto was stopped by Dr. Cosimo Bari, Director of the Celio Commissariat of Rome, who claimed that the Commissariat had jurisdiction over the event because it was in their territory and that Komen’s organizers did not want Crosetto to distribute the open letter.

Crosetto explained, that he had sent a draft of the letter days earlier to Komen’s leaders organizing the event, the Italian President, Government, healthcare leaders, and 60,000 Carabinieri. None of them had objected or requested changes or deletions of any sentence or word, and no one had informed Crosetto that he also needed to send a draft copy to the Celio Questura.

Seventeen days earlier, on 25 April 2024, the Questore of Arezzo had met Crosetto in the square of Civitella and deemed his preventive actions of informing the Italian Government and 60,000 Carabinieri to be sufficient.

However, one policeman explained to Crosetto that the 90,000 Questura and Police employees belong to the Italian Ministry of the Interior and not the Ministry of Defense.

Crosetto gave a copy of his open letter to the policeman, suggesting that it might be in their interest to request the construction of an additional 3D-CBS device to screen 90,000 police employees, potentially saving over 100 lives per year from premature cancer deaths.

However, since the obstacle to distributing Crosetto’s open letter was the President of Komen-Italia, Prof. Riccardo Masetti, Crosetto, escorted by the police, walked from booth to booth in the Komen Village until he was able to locate Prof. Masetti.

He pointed out the certified email addresses of Susan G. Komen and his own email address riccardo.masetti@policlinicogemelli.it, where he had sent the draft of the letter and received no requests for the cancellation of any word or sentence considered illegitimate or unlawful. Crosetto emphasized that the one-page, one-column letter could be read in less than 10 minutes and asked Masetti to read it and point out any word or sentence that prevented its distribution.

Masetti replied that he was busy but would respond within one or two days. After a week, Crosetto sent a certified email (https://bit.ly/3V7Iqgr) requesting that Masetti specify, before 21 May 2024, the words or sentences he considered illegitimate or unlawful in the open letter.

Not having received any response or willingness to collaborate to make the scientific truth emerge for the benefit of breast cancer patients and all cancer patients, but rather pursuing actions that were unscientific and deliberately deceptive and harmful to the public, Crosetto waited until the last day, the last minute, and at 11:59 pm on 10 August, one minute before the allotted 90 days, reported the inconsistencies that harm taxpayers and cancer patients to the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Italy, which investigates and prosecutes crimes.

For the upcoming “Race for the Cure” events in Bologna on 22 September 2024 and in Brescia and Matera on 29 September 2024, Crosetto will again send a draft of his open letter to the leaders of Susan G. Komen in Italy and the United States, to the Italian President, Government, healthcare leaders, 60,000 Carabinieri, and the Italian Questure, particularly those in Bologna, Brescia, and Matera, requesting that they identify any word or sentence that might be illegitimate or unlawful and needs to be removed. He will also ask these recipients to inform him if he needs to send it to any other institution to be able to exercise his right to freedom of speech.

Those obstructing the distribution of a pre-submitted open letter will be reported for violating freedom of speech (Article 11 https://bit.ly/3VgdDgj).

2024 – Regarding the purchase of the EXPLORER device on 20 May 2024 by Sant’Orsola Policlinic in Bologna, Crosetto, who had previously met with healthcare leaders in the Emilia Romagna Region of Italy to discuss the principles of PET/CT operation, its features, and characteristics that serve patients by alleviating suffering and saving lives, was stunned how public money was wasted.

He highlighted that the total component cost of a more efficient 3D-CBS device is less than €2 million, estimating a commercit of €3.5 million, yet the EXPLORER device was purchased for €21 million. On 10 August 2024, Crosetto reported possible violations of laws, harming taxpayers and cancer patients, to the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Italy, calling for an investigation into the scientific and economic inconsistencies of this decision by the leaders of the Emilia Romagna Region.

By purchasing the €21 million EXPLORER, the leaders of Sant’Orsola Policlinic in Bologna effectively contradicted all the claims made by influential scientists in the Reggio Emilia Region, which were used to reject a similar device in 2009. Section 8.b highlights a few statements from the publication (https://bit.ly/3URkSLh) that have since been contradicted.

The burden on Italians is not only the denial of the possibility of saving many lives with a device unsuitable for screening while paying €21 million instead of €3.5 million but also the ongoing costs: every year, Italians will have to pay approximately €1 million in maintenance fees for the Chinese copy EXPLORER, instead of the €100,000 for the commercial version of the 3D-CBS.

Conclusion for the Section “…industries and institutions are better than Crosetto…?”:

The above facts, testimonials, problems solved, and work performed by Crosetto strongly refute the claim that research funding should not be provided to Crosetto. an independent inventor, but rather to Industries and institutions because: “…leaders in the field have more experience than Crosetto. Industries manufacturing PET devices have better know-how than Crosetto in building electronics, detectors, and software…”

During the past 30 years, Crosetto’s ideas, approaches to problems, his practical skill and work in designing leading-edge architectures, detector assemblies, and electronics, and how to couple electronics with detectors in a harmonious-and efficient manner —balancing price and performance for optimal synergy, which provides the most cost-effective results —have not only shown superiority to alternative approaches, but academia, research centers, and industries are increasingly abandoning their methods to adopt Crosetto’s innovations.

One notable example is Siemens, which recanted statements made during a recorded meeting with Crosetto in 2002 and continues to adopt his ideas and implementations. After 24 years, the Chinese company United Imaging Healthcare (UIH) has introduced a PET/CT device with a 148 cm detector length (FOV) named uMi Panorama GS, which mirrors the detector length detailed in Crosetto’s 2000 book (goo.gl/ggGGwF). UIH has also copied features of Crosetto’s ASIC, as described in Section 8.e, which continues to increase efficiency and reduce costs.

During the past 24 years, Crosetto has engaged in discussions with leaders and engineers from Siemens, General Electric, and Philips, further demonstrating his competence and their abandonment of their approaches in favor of adopting Crosetto’s approaches and ideas.

When Crosetto received a $1 million grant, he demonstrated competence, leadership and capabilities to make the best use of funds, leading a team of three young graduates from the university and hiring as consultants the best leading companies in the field such as Synopsys and purchasing the best tools from Cadence.

In 2003, Crosetto made the complete design of his modular, complex, 3D-Flow DAQ-DSP IBM PC photon detection board, personally entering the schematic into Cadence’s Concept HDL. He then solved the problem of connecting signals from 20,000 pins on only 8 layers of a printed circuit board, a challenge that had stumped three reputable companies in Dallas.

On 1^st July 2003, in Dallas, Texas, the reviewer, Vice-President of the fifth largest semiconductor company in the world, stated: “I was impressed that Crosetto designed and built it with only $20,000 per board in 20 fully programmable very large FPGA. In my experience in the industry, the design, development, construction, and debug of electronic boards of this magnitude and complexity is normally the work of a team of engineers costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Crosetto did it all by himself, achieving the objectives”.

The previous FDPP electronic board (https://bit.ly/2CX6CfY), which Crosetto designed and built at CERN in 1988, was also an example of the most advanced technology development at that time.

The fact that Crosetto did not receive funding to perform experimentation of his 3D-CBS invention, showing that it can reduce premature cancer deaths in a specific territory compared to the previous year, is well known, also stated by Scientific American in the October 2018 issue (https://bit.ly/3KWqoWD or https://bit.ly/369yNDZ) “Funding is largely concentrated in the hands of a few investigators. …not necessarily genuine superstars; they may simply be the best connected …”

c) The true answer: “…lack in honesty…?”

The reason why taxpayers and cancer patients are deprived of the benefits from innovations and more cost-effective approaches saving lives and costs is due to the lack of honesty, ethics, scientific rigor, compliance with the Rule of Law and lack of compassion.

The way to fix this is to address how influential leaders work in assigning and recommending the assignment of a portion of the $2 trillion in research and development funding each year.

Chairpersons at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conferences, which are attended by influential scientists who review projects and assign funding, should promote transparency in science. There should be open discussions and comparisons of calculations, efficiency, performance, and cost among different approaches, with funding recommended for the most superior ideas and projects.

Instead of serving as a scientific forum, the current process has become a platform for advertisement, where good ideas are suppressed, their scientific merits ignored, and projects with less or no scientific merit —or that plagiarize other inventors and authors —are approved simply because the presenter is better connected.

Crosetto’s main objective is not to complain about injustice toward himself, showing bitterness or seeking revenge against those who, with arrogance, have suppressed his inventions that could have made him personally wealthy, but are reports of the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity that every scientist should uphold in defense of science, taxpayers, and cancer patients.

However, if the Italian judicial system is spending many hours and a lot of money to identify and bring to justice those culpable of the Mass Killing of 244 civilians in 1944 in Civitella, Italy (https://bit.ly/3WsjuRC), it is legitimate, more urgent, and compelling to identify and bring to justice those who have caused and continue to cause the deaths of 250 Italians per day that could be saved, as well as the needless deaths of millions of people and the loss of billions of Euros in taxpayer money that could have been saved. Instead, their actions, which are possible violations of laws, have disproportionally profited a few.

The fact that for more than two decades Crosetto has continued to submit his inventions to IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conferences and approached colleagues who suppressed, copied, and plagiarized his ideas is proof that he is not acting out of revenge or hatred.

Instead, he hopes they would act honestly toward science, acknowledging the advantages and benefits demonstrated by calculations and scientific evidence, and agree that it is their responsibility and duty toward science, taxpayers, and cancer patients to allocate him, a small fraction (0.00000067) of the $30 trillion spent, on research and development since Crosetto’s inventions, allowing experimentation of his invention, rather than funding other projects that did not provide a significant reduction in premature deaths and costs of the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer.

Crosetto explained in several documents that his filing for and being awarded patents for his inventions was not to become personally wealthy but to provide an incentive to entrepreneurs to fund the experimentation of his invention, for which the patent was protecting their investment, thereby accelerating the benefits to patients’ bedside.

What needs to be fixed is that IEEE leaders and Chairpersons of the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conferences should have the authority to guarantee transparency in science and maintain a forum where merits are determined by calculations and scientific evidence, rather than by the author’s connections to influential scientists.

In 2008, the General Chair of the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference attempted to implement transparency in science and organize a public forum on Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention compared to other approaches but was impeded by influential leaders who did not want a discussion based on calculations, scientific evidence, and the merits of different projects.

Instead, they wanted to control the approval and allocation of a portion of the $2 trillion per year in research and development funds as they saw fit, without being guided by calculations and scientific evidence indicating that one idea or project was better than another.

Scientific merits should not be limited to the opportunity for a short presentation as an advertisement, like Ralph James offered Crosetto in 2003, 2009, and 2013, which colleagues then used to copy and plagiarize. Instead, scientists should engage in honest and ethical comparisons between ideas and projects to determine which ones offer greater scientific merit and thus deserve funding.

For example, leaders like Ralph James, Associate Director of Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), who invited Crosetto to give a seminar on 24^th September 2009, to the physics and bioengineering division at BNL; who was also the General Chair of the 2003 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference and approved three articles by Crosetto; and who in the following years has been Chair of the RTSD conferences; although he may have had good intentions to expose Crosetto’s work to the scientific community, the exposure did not help the advancement in science as time was never spent addressing the content of Crosetto’s articles and posters.

For the past 20 years, when Crosetto met Ralph James almost every year at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference, he never had time to discuss the content of Crosetto’s articles and posters. Instead, James would make a big smile and ask Crosetto if his projects and ideas had gained some “traction”. What should “traction” mean to influential leaders like him, who chair important conferences every year, serve on committees of scientific journals, approve articles, and endorse and fund projects? The meaning of the word “traction” is: “Did the project gain momentum or popularity? Did it start to generate interest and engagement from its intended audience or stakeholders?

This implies honesty and adherence to the ethical code of conduct from influential scientists and stakeholders. Inviting Crosetto to present his invention once, without refuting any calculations or claims, without engaging in a discussion, without funding his experimentation to allow him to prove the saving of lives and costs, but instead funding those who copy and plagiarize his work for the different objective of increasing the cancer business, and then suppressing Crosetto’s subsequent talks that highlight the different use of his inventions to serve taxpayers instead of the cancer business, is not only dishonest and a violation of the code of conduct of a scientist, but if it prevents the saving of lives, it may also be a violation of the Rule of Law.

Therefore, Crosetto’s reports to the Public Prosecutor’s Offices in Italy, which investigate and prosecute crimes, are not complaints driven by bitterness, revenge, or hatred toward his colleagues, but are reports of the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity that every scientist should uphold in defense of science, taxpayers, and cancer patients.

It is not necessary for Public Prosecutors, attorneys, and judges to understand the details of physics or how PET works. Proof of breaking the Rule of Law can emerge by examining statements of promises and commitments made to the public, looking at results, and scrutinizing how money was spent, determining if it was consistent with what is regulated by contracts and/or laws.

For example, who approved the purchase of the €21 million EXPLORER at Sant’Orsola Policlinic in Bologna in the Emilia Romagna Region? Did they consult with the leading experts in the field from the Emilia Romagna Region and national experts, which included the Italian President of Nuclear Medicine, who participated in the discussion with Crosetto on 3 September 2008, and engaged in a 42-page dialogue published in their Nuclear Medicine Newsletter https://bit.ly/3URkSLh)?

Was there an endorsement from the former CERN Director of Research, Prof. Sergio Bertolucci, who is a professor at Bologna University and funded the WPET project, consisting of a coat weighing over 350kg to be worn for 24 hours for cancer screening, which was presented at the CERN auditorium on May 21^st, 2019, see slide here: (http://bit.ly/2JWsxG2).

The CERN auditorium applauded the WPET slide and was financed with EU taxpayer money by the ATTRACT Consortium, led by Segio Bertolucci, Chair, R&D&I Committee (IC) of ATTRACT.

When Crosetto attempted to comment that this project was not feasible, he was silenced, while his 3D-CBS project was not funded. Crosetto followed the scientific procedure, refuting scientifically, line by line, the calculations and claims in the modified WPET article requesting €2 million, but was ignored (https://bit.ly/3iydDp3).

Did the leaders who purchased the €21 million EXPLORER consult with the Co-chair of the 2022 IEEE-RTSD conference in Milan, Dr. Beatrice Fabroni, who rejected Crosetto’s article without providing calculations or scientific arguments?

Crosetto’s seminar on 24 September 2009 at Brookhaven National Laboratory, attended by the physics and bioengineering group, as well as Ralph James and Joanna Fowler, who received the President’s National Medal of Science a year earlier, was video-recorded.

Just as prosecutors spent many hours identifying the violation of the law by those who killed 244 civilians in Civitella in 1944, the video, calculations, and data that Crosetto can provide will make the scientific truth emerge, understandable not only to attorneys and Prosecutors but also to high school students, as he has already demonstrated.

Are the results of alternative approaches, which failed to reduce cancer deaths and costs, due to the actions of leaders who knowingly and deliberately chose to harm taxpayers and cancer patients for personal gain?

Will the suppression of experimentation with Crosetto’s inventions—which have been proven valuable through their adoption by other scientists and industries year after year, despite contributing to the growth of the “cancer business” and the needless loss of many lives—eventually lead to accountability when this is proven? This is similar to the Susan G. Komen case, where leaders knew what saves lives but deliberately chose actions that harmed taxpayers and cancer patients due to personal interests

Rather than forcing Crosetto to spend all his time providing data, circumstances, and proof of deception and harm to the public, to the point of needlessly losing many lives for the sake of personal gain and interests, it would be an advantage for everyone to provide him with 0.00000067 of the $30 trillion already spent on research and development since his 3D-CBS invention, to allow him to build two 3D-CBS devices and conduct experimentation, proving his ability to halve cancer deaths and costs.

7. Crosetto’s Funding Ceased After Proposing Low-Cost Cancer Screening Test of All Organs of the Body in 2 Minutes and a ROADMAP to Defeat Cancer

Support and funding for Crosetto’s inventions ceased in 1999 when the Italian scientist began seeking funding for early cancer detection, proposing “a screening test for all body organs in 2 minutes at a reasonable cost.”

Funding agencies explicitly instructed Crosetto, in writing, not to mention low-cost screening for early cancer detection. Additionally, his publications and presentations at scientific conferences in the field were actively suppressed.

Surprised by these actions by influential scientists, leaders and funding agencies who publicly declare and advertise their goal is to find a solution to cancer, Crosetto, beginning in 2010, proposed a logical approach to solving the cancer problem that would test the honesty of these influential figures.

The logical approach is to request that anyone seeking funding for a cancer-related project should provide a 30-year ROADMAP summarizing in a table, the estimated reduction of cancer deaths and costs they could achieve. This should be supported by calculations and, after receiving funding, prove the estimates when testing their project in a specific territory.

He provided the ROADMAP in Figure 2, supported by calculations at https://bit.ly/3ova8Tz, however, this idea was also suppressed, and influential scientists continued to endorse projects and agencies continued to fund projects without asking recipients to provide a ROADMAP demonstrating a concrete return to the public of taxpayers’ investment.

The public trusts scientists and leaders to be honest, to use logic, and to seek, support, and fund ideas, inventions, and projects that have the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and costs. However, are they adhering to this logic?

Knowing that early cancer detection saves lives, wouldn’t it be logical to seek projects that are cost-effective in detecting cancer at an early stage?

To identify the project with the highest potential to significantly reduce cancer deaths and costs, wouldn’t it be logical to request that anyone seeking funding, claiming to have an idea, invention, or project that can reduce cancer deaths and costs —whether it be for a drug, vaccine, diagnostic device combined with treatment, or a program to educate people on a healthy diet and lifestyle— should first provide calculations and scientific evidence supporting the estimated reduction of cancer deaths and costs they expect to achieve with their project (or combined with other existing techniques) and present a plan to test it on a sample population in a specific territory that would provide unambiguous results?

For example, test their proposed project on at least 10,000 people aged 55-74 from a location where the cancer mortality rate has been constant for the past 20 years (e.g. 0.5%). A difference or no difference in the mortality rate will quantify the success or failure of the proposed solution.

Given the high stakes of defeating the deadliest (more than 10 million cancer deaths per year) and most costly disease (more than $1.5 trillion per year), isn’t it imperative to organize a public competition where projects demonstrating the highest reduction in premature cancer deaths and costs, with calculations, claims, and demonstrations that no one could substantially refute, should be presented publicly to experts from CERN, IEEE, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and healthcare professionals who have the public’s trust?

Furthermore, during these public presentations, project proposers should respond to questions from other project proposers and the experts listed above.

For each of the funded projects, experimental tests on at least 75% of people aged 55-74 should be performed in a specific territory to quantitatively verify the number of cancer deaths and cost reductions compared to the estimated values before receiving funding.

The project that obtains the greatest results should be extended to a larger population.

Influential scientists, leaders and funding agencies refusing and suppressing the logic of scientific procedures that can lead to defeat cancer reveal that what is missing is their honesty toward cancer patients and the public.

Because the logic of the efficacy of the ROADMAP with estimated values of cancer deaths and costs reduction supported by calculations and verified experimentally is understandable by a high school student, not only are the influential scientists, leaders, and funding agencies responsible for the premature needless deaths of millions of people that could have been saved since Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention of the year 2000, but, as stated correctly and clearly by Martin Luther King Jr., in the following two quotes, everyone should not be silent and indifferent, but should take responsibility to address and resolve inconsistencies and injustices.

7.a) Honest intentions are key to solving the cancer problem.

The words of the first quote “…and it may well be that we will have to repent in this generation, not merely for the vitriolic words and the violent actions of bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of good people who sit around and say, wait on time” were pronounced by Martin Luther King, Jr. during his last Sunday sermon on March 31, 1968, before he was tragically assassinated. Likewise, his other quote “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” should make one realize how important it is to take responsibility, not be silent, but speak our conscience.

For the past two decades, Crosetto faced suppression of transparency in science, suppression of open, public scientific procedures, and faced numerous hurdles, harassment, intimidation, mobbing, bullying, threatening, defamation, and abuse of power from individuals attempting to silence him from telling the truth in defense of the interests of taxpayers, cancer patients, and those harmed by injustices. (See Section 8.d for details).

Embrace MLK’s Message: Don’t Be Silent and Indifferent – Speak Out Your Conscience, Act!

We should all be united against cancer, consider all ROADMAPS to defeat it, and publicly discuss which provides the highest reduction of cancer deaths and costs.

Figure 1 shows the poster to be displayed at the Susan G. Komen’s so-called “Race for the Cure” events in Italy. This poster encapsulates a dialogue between the Italo-American scientist Dario Crosetto and key stakeholders (cancer organizations, entrepreneurs committed to supporting good ideas, political powers, and scientific institutions) in the fight against cancer.

Mindful of the words “without memory there is no future!” and the historical lesson that the decline of a civilization is often caused by a lack of trust in the judicial system and its power to enforce the law (as detailed in Section 11), Crosetto, is not venting grievances but logical scientific calculations and facts, without the intention of defaming anyone, but rather with the aim of uniting all those who believe in the Rule of Law to safeguard democracy and civilization, invites everyone to offer their service, as he offers his by providing facts and documents that expose the truth about those who break laws, deceive and harm others, and endanger the survival of democracy and civilization.

Journalists and media outlets are encouraged to disseminate this document to raise awareness.

Crosetto presents logical scientific claims and calculations demonstrating how lives can be saved through cost-effective early detection of minimal biophysiological anomalies, including cancer, by accurately acquiring all possible data simultaneously from all organs of the body at a very low cost.

Rather than silencing him with mobbing and bullying, suppressing his articles and presentation to conferences, dominant scientists and stakeholders have the responsibility to counter his calculations with scientific arguments in a public discussion with research-scientist Crosetto, as the Director of FERMILAB organized for his previous 3D-Flow invention (goo.gl/zP76Tc), and then remit the judgement to the experimental result.

Year after year, Crosetto’s calculations and claims have been confirmed correct by third party measurements. However, while his invention has been copied to be used to serve the cancer business, funding has been denied to the inventor to demonstrate, through experimentation with two 3D-CBS devices, how many lives could be saved.

Therefore, a public discussion face-to-face between Crosetto and experts in the field appointed by Susan G. Komen’s leaders, entrepreneur Stefano Buono, Hon. Jane Nelson, President Sergio Mattarella, CERN Director Fabiola Gianotti, IEEE leaders, scientists of the Pontifical Academy of Science and Hon. Guido Crosetto —who hold positions of responsibility toward the public or who have promised to support sustainable innovations, uniqueness, social wellbeing, and know-how —is necessary to accelerate benefits patients.

Cancer organizations: Crosetto met with leaders of various cancer organizations.

For example, on 3 July 2007, Crosetto met with prominent scientists from Susan G. Komen which has raised billions of dollars over 41 years claiming to “eradicate breast cancer as a life-threatening disease through promoting prevention, supporting women facing the disease, and advancing the quality of treatment”.

During this meeting at Komen’s headquarters in Dallas, Texas, Komen’s scientists agreed with Crosetto’s 3D-CBS approach for cost-effective early cancer detection, stating at minute 53:06 of https://bit.ly/3QU6kt3 “…better screening, this is what we need, and we know that!” and asked Komen’s executives to support experimentation. Outrageously, Komen’s executives requested the deletion of evidence showing their knowledge of life saving methods.

On 12 May 2024, Crosetto met in Rome with Prof. Riccardo Masetti, President of Komen-Italia, who also prohibited Crosetto from distributing a document (https://bit.ly/4byXOry) providing scientific evidence of the efficacy of early cancer detection and the failure of Komen’s 41-year strategy, which shows an increase in breast cancer deaths in Italy from 12,760 in 2016 to 15,500 in 2022.

Another example is Crosetto’s communication over more than two decades with Texas State Senator Jane Nelson, who has been instrumental (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7VJhz7easo) in designing, publicizing with hundreds of speeches, and approving the appropriation of $3 billion of taxpayer money in 2009 for CPRIT (Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas), claiming it would be used to eradicate cancer. In 2012, CPRIT made news on TV and in newspapers when its CEO, leaders, and two Nobel Laureates, head of the Scientific Review Committee, were forced to resign, following a criminal investigation for inappropriately handling $11 million.

For a decade, Crosetto invited Senator Nelson to his native town in Italy, shared his lifelong environment and friends, and organized unique lifetime experiences and cultural exchanges for her, her office staff, her family, her relatives, and friends.

When he asked to be fair to cancer patients and publicly discuss his ROADMAP to defeat cancer against other project proposers who received the $3 billion in funding, he faced mobbing and bullying, even turning the community of his hometown against him.

When CPRIT appropriated an additional $3 billion in 2019, and Crosetto asked Senator Nelson for experimental proof that some projects funded with the previous $3 billion had been tested in a specific territory and demonstrated reduction in cancer deaths and costs, suppression of transparency and truth, mobbing, and bullying increased and expanded to more people against him.

Entrepreneurs Committed to Supporting Good Ideas: Crosetto has interacted with entrepreneurs who have pledged their dedication to give back and support good ideas that can change the world.

Over the past two decades, not only has research scientist Crosetto, but also his collaborators and individuals seeking truth through experimental results from his 3D-CBS invention—rather than relying on opinions from influential scientists and dominant stakeholders—tried to engage with notable members of the Giving Pledge (https://givingpledge.org/), such as Warren Buffett, Paul Allen, Michael Bloomberg, Duncan and Nancy MacMillan, David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, and others.

They asked to fund Crosetto to build two 3D-CBS devices to test the efficacy of each device in reducing cancer deaths and costs. However, they were never able to establish a dialogue with experts in the field who could address the details.

In contrast, Crosetto has been in constant contact with entrepreneur Stefano Buono, whom he invited to CERN in 1989 when Buono was a student, to assist him in testing the FDPP board after Crosetto completed its design and construction (Crosetto, D. “Fast Digital Parallel Processing module FDPP” – CERN – DD /89-33 (AC); CERN – SPS /89 -50 (ACC), December 1989 https://bit.ly/2CX6CfY).

After graduation, Buono started a company, which he sold for $3.9 billion after only 15 years.

When Crosetto invented the 3D-CBS ten years later, Buono recognized its value (https://bit.ly/4dKFYTZ), wrote an excellent review of his book on Amazon (https://amzn.to/3KMJuPl), and stated: ” A real breakthrough in the battle again cancer ! …This is the case of Crosetto’s invention which is in my view a real a revolution: the possibility of transforming a PET scanner into a one year check-up tool is a real breakthrough in the battle again cancer and I wish it will be a reality as soon as possible. …regardless of the current economical practice in the industry… Our health is much more important!” Buono also organized a seminar for Crosetto at CERN, announced in the CERN Bulleting (https://bit.ly/3rGqmtH) that he delivered on 18 May 2001 at the University of Geneva (www.3d-computing.com/pb/3d-cbs.pdf).

Crosetto and Buono worked elbow-to-elbow in the same office-lab at CERN for several months, agreeing on logical reasoning that led to successfully debugging the FDPP board and getting it to work. Buono generated signals with software programs, while Crosetto tracked them using an oscilloscope and a logic state analyzer. Their discussions were transparent and open, adhering to scientific integrity by pursuing and acknowledging evidence resulting from observation and understanding of the laws of nature (science), which create progress and well-being. Crosetto also adhered to ethical respect between scientists by including Buono’s name as a co-author in publications (Buono, S. and Crosetto, D.: “Test results of Real-Time Algorithms Executed on FDPP with SPACAL data” CERN/ECP 90-6, 5 October 1990; Buono, S., Crosetto, D.: “Fast Digital Parallel Processing Module Software Development,” CERN/ECP 90-22, 21 December 1990).

In 1989, Crosetto held a superior position as Buono’s mentor at CERN. Now, the roles have changed, with Buono in a superior position. However, scientific integrity, transparency in science, and ethical respect should remain unchanged. Crosetto is asking Stefano Buono to continue upholding these standards by discussing the value of his inventions—which Buono has already recognized—with his team of experts in an open forum, allowing Crosetto to respond to any of his or his team’s remarks and compare the 3D-CBS project with any other projects they believe have a higher impact, aligned with the objectives stated on their website.

The objectives stated on Buono’s website (https://www.elysiacapital.com/) are: “Sustainable innovation, uniqueness, social wellbeing, know-how… these are the keywords we seek in the projects we support as we firmly believe that good ideas can change the world.” Crosetto’s 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions, which enable a cost-effective 3D-CBS device for cancer screening to save lives, satisfy all these requirements.

“Sustainable innovation and social well-being” are demonstrated by the detailed proposal (goo.gl/w3XlZ1), the 59 quotes from reputable companies, and the roadmap (https://bit.ly/3ova8Tz) showing the cost of €200 per test and the potential to save over 260 lives per 3D-CBS device per year—results that no other project can even come close to achieving.

“Uniqueness” of Crosetto’s basic invention, which accurately captures all possible signals (photons) from tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured, was formally and officially certified at FERMILAB (goo.gl/zP76Tc) by an international panel of experts from academia, industry, and research centers (including a representative from CERN) during a major public, international scientific review of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention.

“Know-how” is demonstrated by Crosetto’s work history, from pages 6 to 16. For previous projects, he hired the best consultants and companies to deliver cost-effective results from the million-dollar grant he received. For the 3D-CBS project, Crosetto demonstrated in detail in the proposal (goo.gl/w3XlZ1) that he has the know-how to provide the design of the ASIC, the electronic boards, the detector assembly, and to provide correct instructions to companies to build the components for the 3D-CBS. He can also lead a team of approximately 16 professionals to assemble and test two 3D-CBS devices.

To implement Buono’s objectives described on his website, it would be urgent to organize a meeting between Crosetto and Buono’s team in the presence of Stefano Buono, as stated on the website (https://www.elysiacapital.com/en/team, https://bit.ly/4dKFYTZ). The team includes: Stefano Buono, who aims to “impacting positively the life of as many people as we can”; Maribel Lopera Sierra, “Teaming with restless people brave enough to change the world”; Viviana Lanzetti, “A bridge to a new era”; Carlo Zuccaro, “Thinking big today for new generations’ future”; Luca Alemani, “The ability to create development and business for the benefit of all”; Filippo Braiato, “Look at progress through the eyes of Nature”; Luigi Burlando, “An intuition you can’t do without”; Davide Domeneghini, “As Newton, climb onto the shoulders of innovation to see Earth’s future”; Farhan Munir, “Continuous positive contribution each passing day”; and Martina Permegian, “A vision that has the potential to change culture.”

The information above, along with the documents available at the associated links, also respond to Buono’s solicitation to submit a proposal at: https://www.elysiacapital.com/en/appliance and at LIFT https://www.liftt.com/en/submit-a-proposal-en/.

Because the issue at hand is not personal for Crosetto but is of interest and benefit to humanity, as stated in Buono and his team’s objectives, Crosetto and the public expect to receive remarks from them with references to other projects to compare with Crosetto’s 3D-CBS project for higher impact in saving lives from premature cancer deaths and saving money from the world’s most costly disease, which should be discussed in a public forum.

Political powers: Government officials and policymakers influencing healthcare policies and funding.

On 25 April 2023, the Presidential Office arranged a brief meeting between the Italian-American scientist Dario Crosetto and Honorable Sergio Mattarella, President of Italy, in Cuneo, where Crosetto hand-delivered a two page letter (https://bit.ly/3pfXKKt). Since the President of Italy serves as the commander-in-chief of the Italian Armed Forces and chair of the High Council of the Judiciary, Crosetto proposed using 0.1% of the Defence’s annual budget to build two 3D-CBS devices. These devices would screen 300,000 Italian Defense employees per year, who are at higher risk of cancer, with the goal of proving experimentally that it can save over 400 lives per year from premature cancer deaths. Crosetto also provided a copy of his letter to the Italian Minister of Defense, Honorable Guido Crosetto, who subsequently organized a three-hour meeting on 4 July 2023, in Rome at the Military Policlinic between the inventor of the 3D-CBS and the highest scientific authority in the defense sector. In a report dated November 29, 2023, written by the Ministry of Defense’s scientific expert, Crosetto’s calculations, logical reasoning, and the benefits of his invention remain unchallenged. However, the report emphasized four times that determining which technology saves or does not save the lives of over 400 defense employees annually was not the goal.

Since 2 February 2023, Crosetto has also been in communication with the Italian Ministry of Health and on 5^th July 2023, while in Rome, he personally visited the Ministry of Health at Lungo Tevere Ripa to deliver hard copies of documents he had previously sent via certified mail (https://bit.ly/3IRnBiQ). He requested an opportunity to explain these documents to officials but was denied and instructed to leave them at the reception. To date, he has not received a response.

Scientific institutions: Academic and research organizations responsible for advancing scientific knowledge and providing expert guidance.

Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention represents a breakthrough in particle physics detection, and when combined with his subsequent 3D-CBS invention it becomes a game-changer in medical imaging devices utilizing radiation detection, such as PET (Positron Emission Tomography), and it revolutionizes the practice of medicine. It enables the precise detection of all possible valid signals from tumor markers at the lowest cost per signal captured, providing a cost-effective early cancer detection, which is the missing piece to reducing premature cancer deaths, as early detection significantly improves the chances of successful treatment. Additionally, Crosetto’s inventions offer cost-effective early detection, diagnosis, and monitoring treatments of many other diseases and allow for the simultaneous, real-time correlation of biophysiological anomalies in different parts of the human body using non-hazardous radiation at a very low cost.

The scientific institutions responsible for organizing a public discussion between Crosetto and experts in the fields of particle detection, electronics, parallel-processing, and biophysiology are: FERMILAB, until 2010, when responsibility was transferred to CERN, due to the construction of the more powerful LHC particle accelerator, along with IEEE, the world’s largest technical professional organization with over 420,000 members dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity (https://nic.ieee/). Furthermore, this discussion should involve all Academies of Sciences worldwide, notably the Pontifical Academy of Science, which boasts 86 Nobel Laureates among its past and present members, including CERN’s Director General and the former Director of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), who currently serves as the scientific advisor to the President of the United States.

In 1993, when FERMILAB was the world’s most important research center in physics with the most powerful Tevatron Accelerator (1 TeV), its Director, who was also the Director of the Superconducting Super Collider, took on the responsibility of organizing an official, formal, transparent, major international scientific review of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention. Crosetto presented and discussed his 3D-Flow invention publicly before hundreds of scientists at the FERMILAB auditorium and in meetings with specialists in different disciplines for an entire day. The review panel, which included reviewers from academia, industry, and research centers, was formally charged with determining whether Crosetto’s technology-independent 3D-Flow invention, which breaks the speed barrier in real-time applications, was superior in flexibility, performance, and lower cost compared to any existing approach, and due to its technology-independent architecture that could preserve these advantages in the future with technological advancements.

Crosetto passed the exam; no one could refute his calculations and claims. His 3D-Flow invention was recognized as a breakthrough (goo.gl/zP76Tc), receiving an immediate $150,000 grant and later being endorsed for an additional $1 million to demonstrate its feasibility, which he successfully achieved and reported in a unique 45-page peer-reviewed article published in a prestigious scientific journal (goo.gl/bqhD4R).

When responsibility for the world’s most important research center in physics was transferred to CERN in 2010, due to the construction of the more powerful LHC accelerator, its Directors did not ensure the emergence of scientific truth through an official, formal, public scientific review as Fermilab’s Director had done. Similarly, IEEE, the Pontifical Academy of Science, and many other organizations trusted by the public refused to require researchers seeking funding for their research to provide a ROADMAP demonstrating a reduction in cancer deaths and costs over 30 years, supported initially by calculations and, after receiving funding confirming the estimated calculations with experimental results.

The October 2018 issue of Scientific American (https://bit.ly/3KWqoWD or https://bit.ly/369yNDZ) highlighted that research and development funding amounting to $2 trillion annually, is not always allocated based on scientific merits and benefits to humanity. The article states “Funding is largely concentrated in the hands of a few investigators. …not necessarily genuine superstars; they may simply be the best connected …many top findings cannot be reproduced.”

The current CERN Director General, in an email dated 7 February 2017, appointed three CERN scientists to address Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention, as FERMILAB had addressed his previous 3D-Flow invention. However, they did not act, did not respond to Crosetto, and the CERN Director General did not reassign this task. In 2008, the General Chair of the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference attempted to organize a review of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention at CERN. However, dominant scientists who control the allocation of a portion of the $2 trillion R&D funding per year resisted public discussions of ROADMAPS for ideas, inventions, or projects that could provide higher returns in benefits to taxpayers, as it would diminish their control over the distribution of these funds. For over two decades, dominant IEEE scientists have directed research toward increasing the cancer business rather than reducing cancer deaths and costs, suppressing Crosetto’s presentations and publications.

Similarly, in 2023, Crosetto’s 3D-CBS project was included in the agenda for the 20 September 2023, Council meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Science. However, its President (https://bit.ly/3PFwpLk) stated: “….we do not have the capacity to hold another cancer related conference next year, not before 2025”., This decision allows the cancer business to continue profiting, delaying the potential to save over 9 million lives from premature cancer deaths that could be saved within two years.

The result of this practice by dominant scientists, who allocate R&D funding without accountability, has led to the development of several Trigger systems for physics experiments over the past three decades, each costing nearly $100 million. These systems, limited in efficiency and flexibility, could have been replaced by a one-time cost of $13 million (goo.gl/w3XlZ1) for the development of a 3D-Flow system that offers higher flexibility and performance. Subsequent units for different experiments would have cost 1,000 times less —$100,000 instead of $100 million each.

For Medical Imaging applications, the commercial version of the 3D-CBS, costing $3.5 million per device, is a powerful research tool also suitable for cost-effective screening for early cancer detection that could have saved millions of lives. In contrast, its less efficient Chinese copy, EXPLORER, costs $21 million per device and is unsuitable for saving many lives (See recent purchase in Italy in Section 8.a).

This situation could be avoided if experts designated by these institutions were tasked with engaging in a public dialogue with Crosetto to either provide references to ideas, approaches, or projects superior in efficiency, flexibility, and low cost compared to Crosetto’s inventions or endorse funding a minute fraction (0.00000067) of the $30 trillion already spent on research and development (R&D) since the inception of his 3D-CBS invention. This funding would enable Crosetto to construct two 3D-CBS devices for experimental tests. Results from such experiments would serve as arbiters in scientific advancement, rooted not in subjective opinions but in empirical evidence.

The poster emphasizes the scientist’s challenge to these stakeholders, highlighting their responsibility to:

Speak up and act: Taxpayers, cancer patients, and stakeholders who believe in and support science and the Rule of Law should not remain silent on the important matter of cancer, the most deadly and costly calamity.
Prioritize logic and science: Decisions and actions should be based on sound scientific evidence and logical reasoning about what effectively reduces cancer deaths and costs, rather than suppressing transparency in science, the truth, and the ROADMAP that can achieve these goals.
Uphold the rule of law: All actions must adhere to legal and ethical standards.
Demonstrate compassion: The well-being of patients and the public should be a priority in decision-making.

Figure 2 provides a graph summarizing the estimated lives saved and revenue plan for 30 years in Italy when using the 3D-CBS. In the background is the table from which the graphs have been generated, which can be accessed and modified interactively at: http://bit.ly/2XI2OFz.

This table is a very powerful tool for designing a strategic plan for different devices (EXPLORER, 3D-CBS, Siemens Biograph Vision Quadra, etc.), products, vaccines, drugs, or procedures. It allows the calculation of efficacy over 30 years for the proposed claimed reductions in cancer deaths and costs, as estimated theoretically in row 16.

As measurements are performed year after year on real devices and by implementing the proposed test protocol, the values in row 16 are corrected, providing a more accurate estimate of the total number of lives saved and costs reduced over 30 years.

The user of this table needs to input the values in rows 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, which are easily determined from calculations based on existing experimental data or products. The data introduced in row 13 estimate the total number of units manufactured each year to reach 564 units for Italy over 30 years.

“The decision to block the experiment carries an immense responsibility, as this choice effectively means not saving 400 Italian Defense employees, 90,000 Italians, and 5 million people worldwide from premature cancer death every year”, says Crosetto.

**Figure 1** – Poster 1.5 x 1 m. prepared for the “*Race for the Cure*” in Italy: Bologna on 09/22/2024, Brescia and Matera on 09/29/2024

**Figure 2** – ROADMAP to defeat Cancer: saving over 90,000 Italians per year from premature cancer deaths.

8. Crosetto’s ‘RESISTANCE: Fighting Injustice and the Suppression of Scientific Truth in Defense of Science and Cancer Patients.

Despite facing numerous adversities, Crosetto has persistently engaged in a ‘RESISTANCE’ against injustice and the suppression of scientific truth, all in defense of science and the lives of cancer patients.

He has delivered over 300 presentations (https://bit.ly/44ZxXqw) demonstrating that ‘an effective screening test for all body organs in 2 minutes at a reasonable cost‘ was achievable with his 3D-CBS invention, first introduced in 2000. Crosetto has informed and engaged in seminars, followed by in-depth discussions with top experts at Italy’s largest oncological hospitals. All of these seminars, including the Q&A sessions and discussions, were videotaped with the consent of those present.

Consequently, there are multiple testimonies where no one has refuted Crosetto’s demonstrations, and there is widespread awareness that his 3D-CBS invention can provide a cost-effective screening test capable of detecting tumors throughout the body at a highly treatable early stage, potentially halving both mortality rates and cancer costs.

Following his meeting with Susan G. Komen’s scientists in 2007, Crosetto conducted hundreds of seminars on his 3D-CBS invention (https://bit.ly/44ZxXqw). Notable examples from 2008 include:

March 2008 at CERN. Crosetto presented his work to former CERN Director of Research Horst Wenninger and his colleagues, who confirmed the significance of Crosetto’s breakthrough invention.
23 June 2008, Rome: A comprehensive review of his 3D-CBS was held at the ‘Ordine dei Medici del Lazio’. The review was translated simultaneously into English and broadcasted worldwide, allowing remote viewers to interact. The local review panel, which included a former member of the Italian Superior Institute of Health, doctors, physicists, anatomic pathologist, entrepreneurs, etc., confirmed the 400 fold efficiency improvement of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention for early cancer detection compared to existing PET (Positron Emission Tomography) technology.
20 August 2008, Erice: Following up on the CERN meeting in March, Crosetto was invited by Prof. Antonino Zichichi to give a seminar to world leaders, including Nobel Laureates and United Nations scientists, at the Ettore Majorana World Center. Crosetto’s seminar was later published by World Scientific in 2009, pp. 531-560 (https://bit.ly/3V2q6nH).
25 August 2008, Rome: Crosetto gave a seminar at the Regina Elena Oncology Hospital.
26 August 2008 at CERN: A review of his 3D-CBS was held at CERN broadcasted globally via the EVO system.
29 August 2008, Milan: He presented a seminar at the National Institute for the prevention and Cure of Tumor.
4 September 2008, Aviano: Crosetto held a seminar at the Centro Riferimento Oncologico (CRO).
3 September 2008, Reggio Emilia: Crosetto presented his 3D-CBS invention to the Italian President of Nuclear Medicine and other experts in the field at the Santa Maria Nuova Hospital. This was followed by an in-depth discussion where Crosetto responded point by point with irrefutable facts and calculations to their questions, later published in a 42-page article in AIMN – Notiziario di Medicina Nucleare ed Imaging Molecolare at: https://bit.ly/3URkSLh.

An analysis of the video recordings of these meetings and hundreds of other meetings and discussions (https://bit.ly/44ZxXqw) between Crosetto and experts, as well as the applause and approvals received, and the 42-page article of Crosetto’s responses to Nuclear Medicine experts in Italy published in the Journal AIMN (https://bit.ly/3URkSLh), clearly demonstrates that researchers and leaders in the field understood that Crosetto’s calculations and claims were correct. His 3D-CBS invention can identify tumors at an early curable stage when they consist of only 100 cancer cells, long before they grow to 1,000,000 cells detectable by mammograms, CT scan, MRI, etc.

In July and November 2004, Crosetto formally and officially presented his 3D-CBS invention to the Italian Superior Institute of Health. The reviewers’ claims that a PET detector longer than 25 cm (FOV) was unnecessary because the largest organ is 15 cm, and their assertions that a 400 fold more efficient PET device was not advantageous or necessary, have now been proven wrong the existence of devices with 1 to 2-meter-long detectors. Is there any accountability for the reviewers whose a mistakes led to the loss of many lives and billions of Euros?

a) Honest Intentions Are Key to Solving the Cancer Problem. Leaders Should Not Betray Public Trust. The Public Should Verify Claims Made in False Advertisements and Speak Up Against Illogical Actions That Harm Humanity.”

The reason why taxpayers and cancer patients are deprived of the benefits from innovations and more cost-effective approaches which save lives and reduce costs is due to a lack of honesty, ethics, scientific rigor, compliance with the Rule of Law, and lack of compassion.

Italians with Big hearts, driven by the collective desire to solve the cancer problem, may not have the knowledge to judge the detailed professional work of Crosetto or that of the dominant scientists and leaders in the field, cancer organizations, and political institutions in charge of serving the public’s interests.

How can they determine the best value they could receive from their €15 or more donation?

It is essential that Italians become critical of the advertisements they receive. They should ask questions and learn more about the details of what is claimed by those selling the advertisement and asking for money, even if these claims come from reputable institutions. They should set aside prejudices toward independent inventors, and, while they may not be able to judge the technology itself, they can observe the behaviors and actions of those involved and determine who is honest and who lacks transparency, who is shirking their responsibilities in positions they have freely accepted, and who is not adhering to ethics and the Rule of Law.

A very simple test is to be suspicious of anyone who is unwilling to provide a theoretical ROADMAP supported by calculations showing their estimated reduction in cancer deaths and costs and how they plan to verify it experimentally year after year. If they have no clear idea how to achieve that goal, it may be because they are either incompetent or have other objectives in mind. An honest person does not try to convince others to achieve a goal they do not know how to reach.

No matter how reputable an organization, company, or institution may be, a donor who wants to contribute to solving a problem like cancer—one that may have affected family members and friends—should use common sense and verify the claims made in advertisements before taking action.

For example, although the news of a spaghetti-harvest from trees in Ticino, Switzerland, was absurd, many people believed it because it was broadcast by the BBC, a trusted source (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVo_wkxH9dU).

Here are a few comments you can read at the link above:

“I saw this on TV as a child, on a rare afternoon, while alone watching tv. Never thought a thing about it, until, by bizarre happenstance, while having spaghetti for supper one night, with my 7 siblings , one of them asked, as a child would, “Where does spaghetti come from?”. I proudly announced. ” It grows on trees” … I was ridiculed and frustrated. For years I wondered , AM I crazy? …It seemed so real. I never forgot it, it haunted me for years and years. Then came the internet, I typed in spaghetti growing on trees, one day. AND THERE IT WAS! …”

“I remember reading about this years ago. From what I’m told,the BBC was stunned by the response this segment got. Not the people who were amused by the joke, nor by those vinegary folk who were scandalized that the BBC programmers had a sense of humor; no, the shocking part was the number of people who wanted information about attending the next year’s harvest festivals”.

“This story caused me to make a fool of myself in the 3rd grade back in 1962. I had seen this story on a re-run of a show called You Asked For It hosted by Jack Smith. But I missed the part about it being a hoax. Sometime later on down the road, my teacher asked the class if we knew how spaghetti was made. I confidently raised my hand and told her it grew on trees. She called my mother later that afternoon after school and told her, ‘I think something is wrong with your son.”

A simple fact-check, such as looking at the photo and asking oneself what spaghetti is made of, would have told the many people who believed the news that it could not be real, despite it being broadcast by their trusted media outlet.

Even someone born in a city who has never seen how products purchased in the supermarket are produced—or even a person coming from Mars who hears such a statement as “spaghetti-harvest from the tree”—would logically read the label on a box of spaghetti: “Ingredient: wheat flour 99%...”

Next, they would find information stating, “Wheat flour is made by taking the wheat berry, removing the bran or outer shell, and grinding the seed into a flour-like consistency.”

Then, they might see a photo of many ears of wheat in a large field, which contain the wheat berries, and realize that wheat grows from the ground, not spaghetti from the trees.

This investigation would allow anyone to determine that the statement “spaghetti-harvest from the tree” is false, even if they don’t realize it’s an April Fool’s joke, regardless of whether it was stated by the BBC or any other reputable institution.

Similarly, the 150,000 Italians who, on 12 May 2024, enthusiastically supported and donated money to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, along with the thousands and millions of people who have done so in previous years at the so-called “Race for the Cure,” should reflect on the following and conduct a simple fact-check to understand that they have been deceived for 41 years, and their good intentions have been exploited and others have taken advantage of their Big hearts wanting to do something for people dying of cancer:

a) For 41 years, the Susan G. Komen Foundation has raised billions of dollars by promising donors to “eradicate breast cancer as a life-threatening disease through promoting prevention, supporting women facing the disease, and advancing the quality of treatment.” However, did they ever test the efficacy of their strategy (with 51% of the money spent on education, 36% on administration, and only 5% on research, etc.) in a specific population or territory to show a reduction in breast cancer deaths compared to previous years??

b) Why do they continue with the same strategy year after year, despite evidence from experimental results showing failure? For example, in Italy, breast cancer deaths increased from 12,760 in 2016 to 15,500 in 2022?

c) Komen has found a fertile fundraising environment among Italians by deceiving and taking advantage of their good hearts.

If 150,000 Italians had investigated the claim made by Susan G. Komen’s CEO, Paula Schneider, in an interview (https://realpink.komen.org/breast-cancer-is-unacceptable-with-paula-schneider/) she released and published on the Komen website, they would have found inconsistencies similar to the “spaghetti-harvest from the tree” claim.

Just as the spaghetti investigation began by reading the label of ingredients on a box of spaghetti, in this case, the investigation should start by reading the highlighted line on page 2 (time 01:24) of (https://bit.ly/4797zLR) where Paula states: “my mother had breast cancer … And then my mom actually passed away from metastatic…” and on page 3 (time 02:57) “that’s the cancer that kills, right? It’s not breast cancer. That’s going to kill you right off it’s it’s if it metastasizes”.

Do the institutions and authorities who endorse, and the people who participate in, the “Race for the Cure” to raise millions of euros, truly believe that Paula Schneider is being sincere and honest when she claims she cannot understand that her mother and countless other cancer patients who died from metastasis could potentially have been saved with cost-effective early cancer detection followed by surgery or other existing successful treatments, rather than solely promoting a healthy lifestyle? While a healthy lifestyle is undoubtedly beneficial for various reasons, it has not demonstrated a significant reduction in cancer deaths, even among those who strictly adhere to it, such as the Mormons in the state of Utah.

Furthermore, if Komen’s CEO, Paula Schneider, and Susan G. Komen’s Director of Research, Mission, and Strategy, Victoria Smart, could not make the connection between early detection and the prevention of metastasis, why didn’t they listen to their scientists, Dwight Randle and Cheryl Perkins, when they told them on several occasions, including in 2007 after the meeting with Crosetto, that “…if we can have better screening, this is what we need, and we know that!”? The fact that they also did not consider the advice from their own scientists, is it because they believe their scientists are wrong and that their strategy of continuing to promote a healthy lifestyle is what is reducing breast cancer deaths, or is it because their goals are not actually aimed at maximizing lives saved and costs reduced?

Do the institutions and authorities who endorse and those who make donations to pay the annual salaries of Paula Schneider ($888,164), Komen’s Head of Research and Mission, Victoria Smart ($331,477), and CFO Ria Williams ($319,076), understand the discrepancy between these figures and the average annual salary of €45,000 for an Italian medical doctor who likely knows much more than Komen’s leaders about what works and doesn’t work to save lives from cancer?

Why don’t institutions endorse increasing the salaries of Italian medical doctors to incentivize them to stay in Italy and reduce the waiting lists for all medical treatments?

Paula Schneider herself admits on page 4 of (https://bit.ly/4797zLR) that she lacks experience in solving medical problems and even in philanthropy, stating: “I’d never had philanthropy experience before and only been a business woman that has run publicly traded companies and large organizations” She also claims, “…what is it going to take for the cure to breast cancer? It’s cash, cash pays for research, research, cures, cancer. Simple, right?”

However, the facts show a discrepancy with Komen’s claims, as they spend only 5% of their funds on research, without requiring grant recipients to provide a ROADMAP estimating benefits in reducing cancer deaths from the funded projects that should be verified experimentally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_G._Komen_for_the_Cure).

The average annual salary of a medical doctor working in an Italian hospital is €45,000 (https://bit.ly/3YgImNb), while in Unites States is $350,000 (https://bit.ly/3Z4y2bF).

The average annual salary of a register nurse in Italy is from €24,000 to €44,000 (https://bit.ly/4e43ACH), while in the United States it is from $82,000 to $124,000 (https://bit.ly/3yZvwc7).

Rather than endorsing the so-called “Race for the Cure,” which takes money from Italians to pay the over €800,000 annual salary of Komen’s CEO, Paula Schneider (https://bit.ly/3WgH4zd), who lacks experience in designing and using medical instrumentation for cost-effective early cancer detection, which saves lives, or in successful treatments when cancer is detected at an early stage, wouldn’t it be more appropriate for Italian healthcare leaders and politicians to endorse an increase in the annual €45,000 salary of Italian medical doctors and €24,000 salary of Italian nurses and invest in better education for Italians on healthy food and lifestyle? (Even though Americans are adopting the Mediterranean diet, which has been shown to increase life expectancy by four years compared to the typical American diet).

The poster in Figure 1 questions whether these stakeholders are fulfilling their roles honestly and effectively in determining the best ROADMAP for solving the cancer problem. It calls upon them to take responsibility and act in ways that are scientifically sound, humane, and in the best interest of those affected by cancer.

These stakeholders, trusted by the public, have freely accepted the duty to speak up and act honestly and responsibly in their roles, based on what their minds consider logical, scientific, and in compliance with the Rule of Law, as well as what their hearts and consciences consider humane, in solving the cancer problem.

b) Why Spend 21 Million Euros on a Commercial Chinese Copy of the 3D-CBS Called EXPLORER, Which Is Not Suitable to Save Many Lives, Knowing that 20 Million Euros Could Fund Two 3D-CBS Prototypes and Provide 3.5 Million Euros for Commercial 3D-CBS Devices that Can Save Many Lives and Reduce Costs?

The Italian healthcare system is facing significant economic challenges and is on the brink of collapse. There is not enough money to adequately pay doctors, purchase medical supplies, or invest in new equipment (ultrasound, X-ray, CT, MRI, etc., which cost from 50,000 to 2 million euros). Patients who cannot afford private healthcare are dying because of long waiting lists of three to six months, or even up to a year for a visit, surgery, treatment, procedure, or diagnostic exam with a CT or MRI.

A recent article by Ottavio Davini, Enrico Alleva, Luca De Fiore, Paola Di Giulio, Nerina Dirindin, Silvio Garattini, Franco Locatelli, Francesco Longo, Lucio Luzzatto, Alberto Mantovani, Giorgio Parisi, Carlo Patrono, Francesco Perrone, and Paolo Vineis, titled “We Cannot Do Without the Public Healthcare Service,” published by Scienza in Rete on 2 April 2024 (https://bit.ly/4beGasv) highlights the challenges the Italian healthcare system needs to address.

Refusing to address and solve the issue of long waiting lists, thereby forcing patients to seek private services, is a tragedy that will destroy the Italian public healthcare system—a system that has proven its effectiveness with a life expectancy four years longer than that of the United States, which relies on an expensive private healthcare system.

In Italy, the solution lies in increasing the salaries of doctors and nurses and allocating 8% of the GDP to healthcare, which is the standard for other advanced European nations, rather than the current 6.2% of GDP in Italy (by comparison, France and Germany spend over 10% of their GDP on healthcare).

Another problem that needs to be addressed to eliminate long waiting lists is the issue of corruption within the Italian healthcare system, where taxpayer money is often wasted or misused by healthcare leaders and administrators. Simultaneously, to curb abuse by employees who violate their contract, healthcare administrators should be empowered to terminate, with justifiable cause, those who are not fulfilling their contractual duties.

People should take inspiration from Honorable Raffaele Costa, the former Minister of Health, who, in 1993-94, personally carried out inspections in healthcare facilities across Italy—from Palermo to Friuli, from Turin to Bari, from Rome to San Remo, from Genoa to Venice.

He completed the so-called “hundred blitzes” (https://bit.ly/4cOC6A1) in Italian hospitals, showing up unannounced, even at 3:00 AM, to check if employees who had clocked in were actually at work, working, or if they were sleeping or watching soccer games. Honorable Raffaele Costa also fought corruption related to the misuse of government-issued blue cars (https://bit.ly/3Z91v4a)

Similarly, the institutions that should protect taxpayers’ money from being wasted, and ensure the rights of employees who may be wrongfully fired, presuppose the functioning of a judicial system with the power to enforce the law.

Part of this protection should include ensuring transparency in science, rather than wasting money on expensive devices like the 21 million euro EXPLORER purchased by Policlinico Sant’Orsola in Bologna.

Despite the lack of funding for healthcare in Italy, Policlinico Sant’Orsola in Bologna has purchased a PET/CT device called EXPLORER for 21 million euros, which is a less efficient and more expensive Chinese copy of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention.

Spending 21 million euros on the Chinese copy confirms that Crosetto’s invention is valuable, but it also reveals that the leaders of the Emilia Romagna region do not prioritize a device aimed at cost-effective early detection to save lives (which is also suitable for research), opting instead for research purposes only, which is unsuitable for saving many lives

Policlinico Sant’Orsola states on their website (https://bit.ly/4bTT1By) “The new device …offers unique opportunities for research and development in oncology, particularly in the field of radiopharmaceuticals” and proudly announces that they are the first hospital in Europe to purchase the most expensive PET/CT in the world.

Is it something to be proud of—taking 21 million euros from the budget of thousands of Italians who struggle to schedule a visit, have surgery, or undergo a procedure with less expensive diagnostic equipment? Other European countries with shorter waiting lists perhaps pay more attention to inequalities.

The inconsistencies do not end here.

Crosetto spent years giving hundreds of seminars in Italy to explain the advantages of his 3D-CBS invention, which were understood by many in the scientific community. He even conducted a seminar for top scientists and leaders in the field in the Emilia Romagna region of Bologna, including the Italian President of Nuclear Medicine. This seminar, held on 3 September 2008, led to an in-depth, 42-page dialogue published in the Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Newsletter (https://bit.ly/3URkSLh). Along with the article and the slides, he presented, the video recording of the meeting, and email exchanges, which serve as proof they were fully aware of the advantages of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention.

By purchasing the €21 million EXPLORER, the leaders of Sant’Orsola’s hospital in Bologna effectively recanted all the claims made by influential scientists in the Emilia Romagna region, which were used to reject such a device in 2009. Here are a few statements from the publication (https://bit.ly/3URkSLh) that have since been contradicted:

On page 37, line 28, a leader in the field stated: “…possibility of numerous false positives…” with a PET device with a long detector, yet they have now purchased the EXPLORER with a 2-meter detector length.
On page 38, line 36, they mentioned: “…possibility of numerous false negatives…” This statement is also contradicted by their current decision to purchase a PET device with a long detector.
On page 38, line 50, they asserted: “…the high cost of the PET prevents its widespread use…” Despite this, the Italian healthcare system, which is severely underfunded compared to other European countries, prioritized acquiring a very expensive €21 million machine that the healthcare system could have at only €3.5 million if they would not have rejected Crosetto’s 3D-CBS in 2009. This machine was purchased without presenting even a theoretical calculation in a ROADMAP showing the benefits it would provide in return for the taxpayer investment, rather than focusing on equitable service for Italians.
On page 38, line 57, they declared: “…Therefore, regardless of the value of the idea, which remains very limited if an industry is not found that will acquire the project for large-scale production…” This statement from 2009 shows that Italian leaders were determined to reject the idea of a PET device with a long detector, even if the idea was sound. However, in 2024, they have completely recanted this position, despite the fact that since 2015, fewer than ten EXPLORER devices have been produced worldwide, contradicting their previous assertion that it need to be produced on a large scale by industry.

The burden on Italians is not only in denying the possibility of saving many lives with a device unsuitable for screening while paying €21 million instead of €3.5 million, but also in the ongoing costs: every year, Italians will have to pay approximately €1 million in maintenance fees for the Chinese copy on the EXPLORER, instead of the €100,000 required for the commercial version of the 3D-CBS.

This annual burden on Italians will be subtracted from the already strained Italian healthcare budget, further exacerbating the denial or increasing the waiting time for other medical procedures). The maintenance fee for CT or MRI medical equipment costing 2 million Euros is over 100,000 Euros per year, or approximately 5% of its cost (https://bit.ly/4ehKRUX), while the EXPLORER’s maintenance fee is approximately 1,000,000 Euros per year.

The €21 million commercial cost of the less efficient EXPLORER is six times the €3.5 million commercial cost of the 3D-CBS, which is based on quotes to purchase its components being less than 2 million Euros.

Had the leaders in the Emilia Romagna region and in Italy not suppressed transparency in science, Crosetto could have provided calculations and scientific evidence proving that the 3D-CBS is more efficient and cost-effective, suitable for both: research and saving lives, while the EXPLORER is unsuitable for saving many lives.

Furthermore, the national leaders who decided to spend €21 million on the EXPLORER did not heed the lesson of the late Nobel Prize winner, Prof. Abdus Salam, former Director of the International Center for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy. In 1980, Prof. Salam hired Crosetto, along with other experts from CERN, to teach advanced technology to senior physicists and engineers in developing countries to avoid their dependence on industrialized countries that control the technology. For over a decade, Crosetto, along with other CERN experts, spent one month each year teaching microprocessors in developing countries.

Prof. Salam’s Reasoning: Prof. Abdus Salam believed that developing countries, rather than receiving donations of high-tech equipment like mainframe computers from IBM (which were being phased out in industrialized countries), needed the knowledge to build their own instrumentation using basic materials like microprocessors costing only a few dollars as they could neither afford the maintenance fees nor repair such sophisticated equipment on their own.
Crosetto’s Proposal: Similarly, after Crosetto explained the advantages of his 3D-CBS invention to leaders in the Emilia Romagna region and in Italy, it would have been in the best interest of Italian taxpayers and the Government to retain the know-how by using 20 million Euros to fund Crosetto to build two 3D-CBS prototypes.
The Absurdity of the EXPLORER Purchase: The decision to spend €21 million on a less efficient copy of the 3D-CBS, known as the EXPLORER, is even more glaring because the inventor of the original technology is the Italian-American scientist Crosetto. He had thoroughly explained, in extensive meetings with Italian leaders and in a detailed 42-page article (https://bit.ly/3URkSLh), that a PET device with a long detector using 30 mm thick economical crystal detectors captures more photons than the EXPLORER, which uses 18 mm thick, very expensive crystal detectors. Even a high school student could understand that, by analogy, a thicker bulletproof vest stops more bullets, just as a thicker crystal detector stops and captures more signals from tumor markers emitted by the tracer in the human body.

Decision-Making Based on Opinions over Facts: The facts show that Italian leaders who decided to spend €21 million of taxpayer money on the EXPLORER based their decision on the opinions of influential scientists, disregarding the scientific evidence, calculations, and logical demonstrations provided by Crosetto. His detailed explanations, which were published in newspapers and distributed at the most important scientific conferences (goo.gl/EJD9yU), highlight significant differences between the 3D-CBS and the EXPLORER. For instance, page 2 of the comparison table, shows that the EXPLORER’s electronics consume 60 KW and require 40 Tbyte of storage per day for results, while the 3D-CBS electronics consume only 4 KW and need just 1 Gbyte per day to store results.

Data Sounces: The data for the Explorer reported in the table are derived from publications, slide presentations (goo.gl/BpqjAj), and several (goo.gl/RG8COf) press (goo.gl/ovMZ5j) releases (goo.gl/Tl95NN) made (goo.gl/NpNNNr) by the authors (goo.gl/xcBe0Q) of the (goo.gl/W6cZ9Y) EXPLORER, as well as calculations based on the data in those articles.
Feasibility of the 3D-CBS: The feasibility and effectiveness (goo.gl/6DS5oy) of the 3D-CBS (goo.gl/YGg04E) (3D-Complete Body Screening) have been proven by the innovative 3D-Flow (goo.gl/5EUkYe) concept, which has been validated in hardware on two modular boards (goo.gl/ymgnXz) each containing 68 x 3D-Flow processors. More recently, the 3D-Flow OPRA (goo.gl/goYPv9) was proven feasible and cost-effective, supported by 59 quotes from reputable industries.
Questionable Qualifications of EXPLORER Implementers: A simple investigation into the implementers of the EXPLORER (https://bit.ly/3vk81UE), who appropriated $15.5 million of taxpayer money in 2015, would have revealed to the Italian leaders at Sant’Orsola Hospital that these implementers had no experience in designing instrumentation or detectors like calorimeters used in High Energy Physics experiments at CERN, which are the larger versions (up to 13 meters in diameter and 48 meters in length) of a PET (0.8 meters in diameter, 2 meters in length). In fact, after receiving the $15.5 million, they outsourced the project to the Chinese company, United Imaging Healthcare, to copy Crosetto’s idea but gave incorrect instructions to focus on spatial resolution rather than high sensitivity and low cost.

2018 Total-Body PET Conference: At the 2018 Total-Body PET conference in Ghent, Belgium, Crosetto asked engineers from the Chinese company United Imaging Healthcare (UIH), who were manufacturing the EXPLORER, why they were focusing on high spatial resolution, with expensive thin 18 mm crystals instead of prioritizing high sensitivity at a lower cost.

UIH Engineer’s Response: One of the engineers, who understood the validity and scientific merit of Crosetto’s question but could not refute his claim, shifted the responsibility for this unscientific choice from UIH to the American scientists (https://bit.ly/3vk81UE) from three universities who commissioned the work. The engineer explained that UIH is an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) and simply builds what their customers request.
Written Confirmation: Crosetto received a similar response in writing on 3 April 2019 from the senior Vice-President of United Imaging Healthcare and member of the UIH Executive Management Committee MI BU CEO who stated: “…it is critically important that we respect and heed the calls of many of the leading opinion leaders of the field…” This response further confirms that influential scientists have misguided the direction of research in this field, emphasizing spatial resolution over high sensitivity, which is the logical and scientifically necessary measurement for an instrument whose principle of operation requires measuring variables over time.

The correspondence between Crosetto and the leaders of the Chinese company United Imaging Healthcare (UIH), which manufactures the EXPLORER, as well as Crosetto’s two-hour presentation at their headquarters in Shanghai on 19 November 2018 in the presence of the President, CEO, several Vice Presidents, and engineers of UIH, and the subsequent changes they made to their design based on Crosetto’s 3D-CBS, all serve as proof of the value of Crosetto’s invention.

Based on this correspondence and the invitation to UIH’s headquarters in Shanghai, Crosetto was induced to believe in a collaboration aimed at developing the 3D-CBS for both research and saving lives through an accurate, very high sensitivity, low-cost, low-radiation cancer screening device. However, UIH seemingly chose to leverage aspects of Crosetto’s inventions that suited their needs, focusing on developing a tool primarily for research, unsuitable for saving many lives.

The leaders in the Emilia Romagna region and Policlinic Sant’Orsola appear to have made a similar choice, one that is not in the best interest of taxpayers and cancer patients.

Since 1995, Crosetto has consistently advocated, through seminars and articles, for the proper use of PET technology with a focus on sensitivity rather than spatial resolution. In 2021, other scientists, including Prof. Iwao Kanno, keynote speaker at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference, echoed this viewpoint. Kanno’s presentation included the first and last slide of his talk titled a “Take home message” slide with the statement, “The goal of PET is to measure biophysiology, not to take beautiful picture” This emphasizes the importance of prioritizing sensitivity over spatial resolution.

Despite the scientific evidence supporting Crosetto’s stance over the past three decades—and now being agreed upon by other renowned scientists—some influential scientists continue to promote competitions and awards focused on developing picosecond electronics for PET, which emphasize spatial resolution. This focus caters to the cancer business by tracking the effects of chemotherapy drugs rather than funding Crosetto to build the 3D-CBS, which could experimentally demonstrate that each machine can save over 260 lives per year through early cancer detection combined with prompt treatment.

Lack of transparency: Before spending 21 million euros, the leaders at Policlinic Sant’Orsola, to be fair and respectful to taxpayers and cancer patients, could have fostered transparency in science by organizing a public debate between Crosetto and any expert in the field who had ideas, projects, or strategies on how best to use the 21 million euros to defeat cancer.

Journalists should interview the leaders at Sant’Orsola Policlinic to see how they respond to these considerations and calculations, whether they can identify any significant errors, and to initiate a public dialogue with Crosetto on what would be more beneficial to Italian taxpayers and cancer patients for a greater impact in reducing cancer deaths and healthcare cost.

c) Where’s the ROADMAP for using the 21 Million Euro Chinese Copy? Is it Designed to Save Lives or to Develop New Drugs to Fuel the Late-Stage Cancer Business?

Now that Sant’Orsola Policlinic has the expensive 21 million euro EXPLORER device, the first in Europe, are their leaders prepared to conduct an experimental study on early cancer detection through screening followed by prompt treatment on a specific population (e.g., in a specific ZIP code within or near Bologna), measuring each year the reduction in cancer deaths in that area compared to previous years and other areas not using the EXPLORER?

Are they ready to hire 8 doctors, 6 nurses, 4 technologists, and 11 administrative personnel—a total of 29 people as detailed on page 92 of (http://bit.ly/2QdgdTx)—to implement 60,000 screening tests per year as reported on page 98 of the same document, to verify the theoretical calculations that could potentially save 130 lives per year, at an additional total cost of 36 million euros per year for screening tests and follow-up procedures?

In comparison, the more efficient and lower-cost 3D-CBS, capable of screening 90,000 people per year with a total of 48 professionals (20 doctors, 8 nurses, 8 technologists, and 12 administrative personnel), is estimated to save over 260 lives per year at an additional total screening test and follow-up cost of only 20 million euros per year, as reported on pages 113-116 of (http://bit.ly/2QdgdTx) or pages 5-6 of (https://bit.ly/3ova8Tz).

Five hundred 3D-CBS devices, besides having the potential to save the lives of over 90,000 Italians per year can also halve the current cancer cost of 20 billion euros per year (https://bit.ly/3ova8Tz) to 10 billion Euros per year (20 million Euros for performing 90,000 screening tests on one 3D-CBS multiplied by 500 devices).

Will Sant’Orsola’s leaders take action and hire an additional 29 people to perform 60,000 screening tests per year, keeping the EXPLORER busy 16 hours per day, starting an operation that is both profitable for the hospital and beneficial to taxpayers, proving experimentally that it can save 130 lives per year? Or will they keep the 21 million euro machine idle for most of the time, paying a 1,000,000 euro annual maintenance fee, and use it only during business hours for research, aiming to develop new drugs that fuel the cancer business? Such a focus may extend the lives of patients with late-stage cancer by a few weeks or months, but it will deplete all their savings with expensive chemotherapy drugs before they die in a country with private healthcare, or place a heavy burden on the public healthcare system in countries like Italy.

So far, Crosetto’s calculations have been accurate, and it is expected that an experimental screening test will also confirm that the EXPLORER saves 130 lives per year at 36 million euros per year, while the 3D-CBS saves over 260 lives per year at 20 million euros per year. No one has refuted Crosetto’s calculations of a 200 euro test, with the last confirmation occurring at a videorecorded meeting at SERMIG in Torino, Italy, on 17 May 2024, with an economist and a physicist.

Crosetto has noted in the last line of page 5 of (https://bit.ly/3ova8Tz) that salaries should be adjusted for each country where the test is performed (e.g., higher in Switzerland and lower in India), and the economist from Torino agreed that in Italy, the salary of a doctor is less than 400,000 euros per year, bringing the cost of the test lower than 200 euros.

Taxpayers and cancer patients want to see tangible results in lowering mortality rates and costs per life saved in a specific territory where their money is invested, not just advertisements for purchasing an expensive machine.

d) Can the Judicial System Protect Cancer Patients from Exploitation by Those Who Raise Money in Their Name for Personal Gain?

Anyone raising or spending money to fight cancer, claiming a reduction in cancer deaths and costs—whether it be for a drug, vaccine, diagnostic device combined with treatment, or a program to educate people to a healthy diet and lifestyle—should first provide calculations and scientific evidence supporting the estimated reduction in cancer deaths and costs they expect to achieve with their project (or combined with other existing techniques) and present a plan to test it on a sample population in a specific territory that would yield unambiguous results. For example, they could test their proposed project on at least 10,000 people aged 55-74 in a location where the cancer mortality rate has been constant for the past 20 years (e.g., 0.5%). A difference or no difference in the mortality rate will quantify the success or failure of the proposed solution.

The ROAD to SUCCESS in DEFEATING CANCER should be BASED on verifying the HONESTY of those proposing a solution WHO should refer to and ACCEPT the RESULTS of an EXPERIMENT as the ultimate JUDGE of their proposal’s EFFICACY.

To protect taxpayers and donors from exploitation, Crosetto proposes that any researcher applying for a grant or any cancer organization raising money claiming to reduce premature cancer deaths and costs should submit a ROADMAP similar to Figure 2 (https://bit.ly/3ova8Tz) and provide the following additional information:

A ROADMAP demonstrating a reduction in cancer deaths and costs each year over 30 years, supported by calculations and scientific evidence.
The total cost to develop the project.
The number of months or years from receiving funding to complete the project and have it ready for efficacy measurements through experimental tests.
The number of months or years from project completion to obtain the first experimental results, which should be compared with the theoretical values estimated by the proposer in the ROADMAP presented before receiving funding.
Proof that the project was submitted to scientists and leaders in the field who hold responsibility for determining what works and what doesn’t in reducing cancer deaths and costs, and that these experts did not provide incontrovertible counter-calculations substantially refuting the calculations and claims of the proposer.
Proof that the proposer of the project or invention has informed the public, journalists, newspapers, and television, and has made publicly available their calculations and claims demonstrating the benefits of their project in reducing cancer deaths and costs.
Proof that the proposer has compared their project or invention with other leading projects claiming significant reductions in cancer deaths and costs and is willing to discuss and publicly compare their calculations and claims with the authors of other projects.
Verification that experimental results proving the ineffectiveness of the proposed project in reducing cancer deaths and costs do not already exist. If such evidence does exist, the proposer should be prevented from deceiving the public with false advertisements that have been refuted by existing experimental data. If individuals or organizations do not accept the evidence of ineffectiveness and knowingly and deliberately deceive the public with false information, the judicial system should protect taxpayers and cancer patients by freezing their assets and issuing punitive damages, which should be directed toward funding other legitimate cancer projects.

Implementing the above eight points is beneficial to:

The 150,000 Italians and anyone else with big hearts who respond to calls to defeat cancer by making donations.
Bringing attention to the work of researchers who have cost-effective ideas, inventions, or projects that demonstrate significant reductions in cancer deaths and costs.
Cancer organizations seeking to fund projects that are genuinely cost-effective in reducing cancer deaths and costs.
Scientists and leaders managing $2 trillion per year in research and development funds who are searching for the best solutions to address the most pressing societal needs and advance science.
Politicians responsible for handling taxpayer money who aim to solve the most deadly and costly diseases and who seek to provide the best service in the public’s interest.
The judicial system, which needs evidence to protect taxpayers and cancer patients from being deceived, scammed, or harmed by those who knowingly and deliberately break the law for personal gain.

A simple internet search using the words “fake claims reducing risk of cancer” reveals thousands of results, including from reputable institutions, universities, newspapers, and television networks such as NIH, FDA, Harvard Health, WSJ, NBC, and ilfattoalimentare.it. These sources highlight fake claims about reducing cancer risk that are not supported by scientific evidence or calculations, and that have been repeated for decades despite being refuted by experimental results.

Some have been issued cessation orders of the false advertisement and punitive damages against the organization that was deceiving the public. One such case is reported on the website https://ilfattoalimentare.it/le-noci-per-la-ricerca-veronesi-life.html, which states:

«The advertising message “Did you know that a portion of nuts helps reduce the risk of cancer?” promoted by LIFE (a company specializing in the distribution of dried fruits) and the Umberto Veronesi Foundation is misleading. The decision was made by the Jury of the Institute of Advertising Self-Regulation, and the advertisement in question appeared in issue no. 51 of the magazine Starbene in December 2016 and on the company’s website Lifeitalia.it. … the Jury declared the message misleading and ordered its cessation».

In the specific case of the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which claims to “eradicate breast cancer as a life-threatening disease through promoting prevention, supporting women facing the disease, and advancing the quality of treatment”, is the allocation of 51% of funds raised to educational activities promoting physical activity and proper nutrition, 3% to mammography screening and tools hundreds of times less efficient than the 3D-CBS, and 36% to administrative expenses, a deceptive statement proven false for many years by experimental results? Should the judicial system issue a cessation order and punitive damages against this organization?

The fact that for more than four decades, experimental results have proven Komen’s claim to be false, and that in a recording on 3 July 2007, their scientists admitted they knew what does and does not work to reduce premature cancer deaths—acknowledging that early cancer detection “…is exactly what we want!”—but Komen’s executives chose to suppress experimentation of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention without providing any calculations or scientific evidence to refute his claims, raises significant concerns. Are these sufficient grounds for an indictment by the judicial system, showing that Komen knowingly and deliberately deceived the public, taking their money for activities they knew for 41 years would not reduce breast cancer mortality, while using donors’ money for personal gain and paying exorbitant salaries to Komen’s executives?

At the Susan G. Komen Village at the Circo Massimo in Rome on 12 May 2024, there were signs “Padel for the Cure” which Komen websites https://www.komen.it/iniziative/padel-cure/ claims “Padel for the Cure, the new event of the Association that promotes the combination of sports and prevention throughout the national territory, emphasizing the importance of adopting healthy lifestyles that include regular physical activity, aimed at both female and male audiences. A distinctive feature of padel is its inclusivity, as it allows men and women to play together”.

However, this raises several questions. Isn’t Komen primarily focused on reducing breast cancer mortality in women? Is there a significant number of breast cancer deaths among men that necessitates such a campaign? While a healthy lifestyle is beneficial for everyone, the reduction of breast cancer deaths through lifestyle changes is insignificant compared to the impact of early detection of breast cancer, which has a survival rate of 98%.

Komen’s website further states: “…With Padel for the Cure, Komen Italia continues its commitment to sport and well-being, also focusing on solidarity, a program that is already being joined by other tournaments throughout Italy. The new Padel for the Cure format can be promoted by associations, sports clubs, companies, volunteers, Donne in Rosa, relatives and friends, followers, simply by organizing one or more matches and following the guidelines provided by Komen Italia”. But one must ask: Are these guidelines truly aimed at reducing breast cancer deaths, or are they primarily focused on raising funds?

Walking through the Komen Village, visitors encounter various booths where they can participate in activities like archery, basketball, volleyball, and fencing, all sponsored by brands such as “Fita,” “Fijlkam,” “Todis,” “Kenvue,” “Takeda,” “Unicamillus,” “Oropuro,” etc. These activities and brand names are prominently displayed next to the Komen ribbon logo and the text “Race for the Cure,” which might lead visitors to believe that these activities significantly reduce cancer risk.

Figure 3 – What is the connection between the products advertised in the long sequence of gazebos “Fita”, “Fijlkam, “Todis”, “Kenvue”, “Takeda”, “Unicamillus”, “Oropuro”,” in the second photo from left and the “Cure, Prevention, or Reduction of the Risk of Breast Cancer”? The text on the wallpaper of the fourth photo from the left reads “OUR DREAMS BECOME CONCRETE PROJECTS ALSO THANKS TO YOU”. But what “DREAMS” are Komen’s leaders referring to? The dream of reducing breast cancer deaths in Italy, which have actually increased from 12,760 in 2016 to 15,500 in 2022? Or is it the “DREAM” of raising more money by deceiving the public?

At the Komen Village in Rome, there was a stage with over 50 stationary bikes, where people pedaled enthusiastically, encouraged by a speaker who motivated them with slogans “for the Cure,” as if this activity would keep cancer at bay. However, there is no scientific or experimental data proving any significant reduction in cancer mortality through cycling.

Figure 4 – People are pedaling on over 50 stationary bikes as a speaker encourages them with slogans, making them believe that by doing so, they are contributing to curing, preventing, or reducing the risk of breast cancer deaths? Is this scientifically valid? Is it supported by calculations and experimental results, or is it just propaganda to secure 150,000 membership fees and additional donations?

Take the example of Lance Armstrong, who cycled extensively and won several Tour de France titles (which were later stripped due to his use of performance-enhancing drugs). Despite all his pedaling, he was still diagnosed with cancer. Armstrong also created the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which has raised over $500 million since 1997 to fight cancer.

In 2012, at the World Cancer Congress in Montreal, Canada, Lance Armstrong was invited as a keynote speaker to address the cancer problem, despite lacking a concrete project or ROADMAP for solving it. Meanwhile, Crosetto, who had a solution and a ROADMAP (https://bit.ly/3ova8Tz) was not given the opportunity to present it at the plenary session, where it could be discussed with those genuinely interested in solving the cancer problem. Crosetto was limited to providing three slides (https://bit.ly/4bXRiLx), which were not promoted for discussion or comparison with other projects, effectively ignoring his solution to the cancer problem.

Meanwhile, other projects, such as Panacea, which claimed to have developed a blood test that could detect cancer at an early stage with 94% sensitivity and 91% specificity for the four major cancer killers (lung, prostate, breast, and colon), received much more attention.

Crosetto met with the President and CEO of Panacea and proposed conducting an experimental test that would not be randomized, as they had done to claim 94% sensitivity and 91% specificity, but rather focused on a specific area to prove the effectiveness of their blood test in reducing cancer deaths compared to previous years and to other locations that were not using their blood test. However, Panacea’s CEO was not interested and declined to discuss the efficacy of the blood test further.

A search on the internet revealed that Panacea’s blood test was featured in 2007 in *Time* magazine as a sensational discovery for early cancer detection. However, when Crosetto searched online for the existence of Panacea in 2022, he discovered that the company, www.panaceapharma.com, no longer existed. Through Bloomberg.com, he traced the history of Panacea and found out who had acquired it. When he contacted them, he was informed that they no longer performed such blood tests for early-stage cancer detection.

Like waves that come and go, the trend of blood tests for cancer diagnosis has returned, generating thousands of articles on liquid-biopsy (blood test) technology and attracting billion-dollar investments.

Crosetto, always attentive to anything that could benefit patients, recognized that a blood test is safe for patients and its effectiveness can be easily verified. Therefore, he volunteered to undergo any liquid-biopsy test that could provide useful information about his health. Initially, a doctor suggested the Guardant 360 test, which was not a problem since the test kit cost $200. However, it turned out that this test was not for cancer screening but only for stage IV patients to determine therapy.

Crosetto then inquired about any appropriate liquid-biopsy test for screening asymptomatic individuals and was suggested the “NewAmsterdam” genomic test, which costs $2,800. A more in-depth investigation led him to summarize his findings in a two-page article (https://bit.ly/3tEiGdb).

None of the authors of liquid-biopsy articles have dared to present a ROADMAP similar to the one Crosetto developed https://bit.ly/3ova8Tz, which details the number of lives saved and the money saved year after year using the 3D-CBS device, followed by experimental verification of his calculations and estimates.

Liquid-biopsy technology certainly has the potential to provide useful information for the genomic profiling of various types of cancer. However, it would not only be very expensive but also require a long learning process, possibly creating more business in genomic profiling rather than saving many lives. It is likely that it will increase the cost per life saved rather than reducing it.

None of the authors of these liquid-biopsy articles have been able to perform calculations, even theoretical ones, to demonstrate the effectiveness of liquid-biopsy when used with a specific protocol in a sample population in a specific area in reducing premature cancer mortality and related costs.

If none of the authors specializing in liquid-biopsy can estimate a timeline for concrete benefits to cancer patients, this should prompt taxpayers and cancer patients to recognize that, for now, much of these claims about eradicating cancer and reducing costs with liquid-biopsy is just that—hype and publicity.

Ultimately, taxpayers and cancer patients, who may not have the technical knowledge to verify the truthfulness of the claims made by thousands of individuals and organizations over the past century about breakthrough discoveries to eradicate cancer, should look at the HONESTY of those individuals and organizations. They should consider whether these entities accept accountability not only to donors, governments, and scientists endorsing a cancer project but also to the Laws of Nature.

If an individual or cancer organization claiming to work in the public interest to eradicate cancer does not accept being judged by experimental results—by providing, before receiving funding, calculations in a ROADMAP that estimates the reduction of cancer deaths and costs year after year, and by agreeing to prove these calculations and claims through practical results on a specific territory—then donors and taxpayers should question the honesty of that individual or organization.

Furthermore, if the individual or cancer organization continues year after year to receive donations or taxpayer grants, promising to use the funds to fight or eradicate cancer without providing tangible, unambiguous experimental results, and if they do not accept the scientific evidence of the failure of their calculations and claims, the Judicial System should intervene. It must protect donors, taxpayers, and cancer patients from being deceived and scammed by investigating the operations of such individuals and organizations

Throughout the past decades, actions have been taken against various individuals and cancer organizations, such as the aforementioned case involving false claims about nuts reducing the risk of cancer. These actions have included orders to cease false and deceptive advertising, and in some cases, punitive damages have been imposed.

In the case of Susan G. Komen, the Judicial System has 41 years of data and facts to investigate whether their executives have been breaking the law. The investigation should consider whether Komen’s executives knowingly what does and doesn’t reduce cancer deaths, continued with strategies that did not reduce cancer deaths, despite being informed by their own scientists in 2007 that early detection is what is needed. They were also aware of the evidence from 41 years of experimental results showing that Komen’s strategy and actions did not reduce cancer deaths. Despite this, on 12 May 2024, Komen-Italia’s President, Prof. Riccardo Masetti, without citing any illegal or unlawful words in Crosetto’s open letter (https://bit.ly/4byXOry), which was sent to him in draft form before distribution, prohibited its distribution without providing any reason. Crosetto’s open letter contains data and facts aimed at defending taxpayers and cancer patients.

The Judicial System should investigate whether the actions of Komen’s executives demonstrate that they knowingly and deliberately used donor money to pay the CEO’s over $800,000 per year salary and other misuses of donor funds, which they knew had no impact on reducing premature breast cancer deaths, despite promising donors otherwise. This could constitute a scam against donors and the public.

To be fair to donors, cancer patients, the public, the Italian Government institutions who have been deceived (including the President of Italy) by using taxpayer money and public resources and services, supporting and endorsing the 12 May 2024 “Race for the Cure” event and all Komen’s events of the previous years, the Italian Judicial System, should freeze all money raised in Italy by Susan G. Komen-Italia because it belongs to the over 150,000 Italians with Big Hearts who responded to the call to defeat cancer and it should be used for that purpose.

Susan G. Komen’s executives, in an effort to demonstrate honesty going forward and to be fair to donors, cancer patients, and all other involved parties, should show repentance for their past actions to potentially receive lesser punitive damages from the Judicial System. They should agree to reverse their 2007 decision to suppress funding for Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention, which is capable of providing cost-effective early cancer detection. In the absence of any valid calculations or scientific arguments from scientists at CERN, the Pontifical Academy of Science, healthcare experts, or industry experts in the field, they should allocate $20 million to Crosetto to build two 3D-CBS devices.

e) Can the Judicial System Protect Cancer Patients and Taxpayers from Scientists Who Refuse to Provide Calculations and Scientific Reasons, Complying with Science and the Rule of Law, and Instead Use their Power to Knowingly and Deliberately Ignore or Suppress Innovations That Save Lives and Advance Science, While Endorsing Funding Projects for Personal Gain and Primarily to Increase Industry Profits?

The public places its trust in leaders who hold positions of responsibility and have an impact on millions, or even billions, of people and dollars.

When leaders fail to perform their duties and violate their responsibilities, they may be exposed by the media, leading to public condemnation that forces them to resign or be removed from office. They may also face legal consequences, including potential incarceration, through the Judicial System.

A study published by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) titled “Corruption – the World’s Big C Cases, Causes, Consequences, Cures” at the website https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/upldrelease111pdf.pdf analyzes corruption and dishonesty by famous leaders in public office, such as President Richard Nixon, Jacques Chirac, and François Mitterrand. The institution “TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL: The Global Coalition Against Corruption” generates a Corruption Perception Index (CPI) worldwide, with the 2023 index available at https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023.

Although the United States is a superpower with a population six times that of Italy (https://bit.ly/3z9duE2), each country should take pride in the good values of its people and their achievements, regardless of its global power status.

The United States can be proud of figures like Republican Abraham Lincoln, Democrat John F. Kennedy, civil rights leaders Martin Luther King Jr., and Eleanor Roosevelt. It also boasts the most technologically powerful economy in the world.

However, Italy should take pride in its courageous citizens like Paolo Borsellino, Giovanni Falcone, General Carlo Alberto dalla Chiesa, Piersanti Mattarella, etc. Italy should protect and improve its healthcare system, which achieves a life expectancy for Italians that is four years longer than in the United States (https://bit.ly/3VtDzow). Additionally, Italy’s criminal justice system and guarantee of fundamental rights are better than those in the United States.

The World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index for Criminal Justice (https://bit.ly/3z3jhe2), ranks Italy 26th out of 142, better than the United States, which ranks 29th. For fundamental rights (https://bit.ly/4evOw1w), Italy also ranks better at 30th, while the United States ranks 38th.

In the private sector, Transparency International published a list of 25 scandals involving abuse of power that received public condemnation, including Siemens https://www.transparency.org/en/news/25-corruption-scandals. The website https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporate_collapses_and_scandals lists over a hundred corporate collapses and scandals.

Leaders who fail to meet their job responsibilities, professional standards, or show dishonesty within a company or government, and who harm or damage thousands or hundreds of thousands of employees or citizens, are held accountable. Corrupt mayors of towns or national leaders, like Richard Nixon who was forced to resign for the Watergate scandal, are similarly made accountable.

However, dishonest scientists holding powerful positions, who fail to take responsibility for refuting a colleague’s calculations by referring to mathematical rules and scientific evidence, and who instead, for personal gain, abuse their power by deliberately ignoring or suppressing scientific innovations due to their vested interests in supporting more expensive and less effective alternative projects, should also be held accountable. They should be held to the same standard as Nixon, Chirac, Mitterrand, and Craxi, who was sentenced in 1994 to 8.5 years in prison, with an additional four years added the following year.

Nixon’s dishonesty may have affected 300 million people; Chirac, Mitterrand, and Craxi’s dishonesty may have affected their countries with 60 million people each. However, the dishonesty of scientists who suppress transparency in science and stifle open public discussion in a forum endorsed by top leaders—a forum intended to foster innovation and uncover scientific truth for the betterment of society—affects billions of people, causing harm, denying, or delaying benefits to humanity.

No one is above the law, and scientists should not be above the Rule of Law either. Attorneys, prosecutors, and judges who have the courage to take on cases against powerful politicians, entrepreneurs, the Mafia, cartels, or drug smugglers to eliminate corruption should not be intimidated by their lack of expertise in scientific details like particle physics as a scientist from CERN or how Positron Emission Technology (PET) works and how devices are built.

Uncovering the truth in science can be even easier than tracing canceled checks in money laundering or bribery, identifying DNA matches in criminal cases, or connecting conversations in corruption plots.

It is easier to expose the truth when a scientist is dishonest, guilty of harming a group of people, or committing a crime against humanity, where people suffer and die as a consequence of corrupt scientists who knowingly and deliberately withhold accurate scientific information to further their personal gain.

The truth emerges by subjecting the scientist’s claims to the judgment of the Laws of Nature.

In this way, the true counterpart to the scientist requesting funding or claiming to have a more advantageous idea than a colleague is not the funding agency but the Laws of Nature, which cannot be bribed, deceived, or cheated. The experimental results proving whether an idea, project, or strategy is reducing cancer deaths in a specific area will be the judgment understood by donors, taxpayers, and cancer patients—the investors and beneficiaries—as well as journalists, attorneys, politicians, doctors, and judges who have the responsibility and power to act in the public interest.

Journalists and media outlets, just as they had the courage to publish undeniable facts about Watergate, leading to Nixon’s resignation, and the facts related to Chirac, Mitterrand, Craxi, and many others who were indicted and condemned by the Judicial System, should also have the courage to publish Crosetto’s calculations and claims without fear of defamation lawsuits.

For example, Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention, formally and officially recognized as a breakthrough in 1993 (goo.gl/zP76Tc), broke the speed and cost barriers in real-time applications. This innovation could have saved hundreds of millions of dollars in High Energy Physics experiments at CERN while simultaneously providing a powerful tool for discovering new particles.

This is confirmed by 30 years of data and documents publicly available at CERN and in scientific publications, as well as the admission on 10 November 2023 at the IEEE-NSS-RTSD Conference in Vancouver, Canada by Antonio Cervello and Sudarshan Paramesvaram, experts in the field from the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN. Further evidence can be found by comparing figures 3 on page 344 and figure 25 on page 370 of Crosetto’s peer-reviewed article (goo.gl/bqhD4R) with figure 7 in the CERN article (https://bit.ly/4d6ywCC). These comparisons highlight the less efficient and more expensive approach taken by CERN for Trigger Systems over the past three decades, which are less powerful, limited in executing complex algorithms without losing input data, and 100 times more expensive than the 3D-Flow system.

Another example is Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention, which could have already halved cancer deaths and costs for those who could have undergone screening with this device followed by prompt and successful existing cancer treatments.

Unlike expressing an opinion about a person, which could potentially be subject to defamation claims, presenting Crosetto’s facts, data, and calculations—rooted in mathematical principles that cannot be refuted—is not only legitimate but essential in defending the public from being deceived and harmed. Journalists and media outlets face no risk of condemnation by the Judicial System for reporting these truths.

Defamation claims would only be valid if leaders in positions of responsibility could prove Crosetto’s calculations incorrect and provide irrefutable evidence that his inventions would fail in experimental trials and Crosetto would continue with his claims. However, for 24 years, no one has refuted Crosetto’s calculations and claims. In fact, experimental results from third parties have consistently validated his accuracy. Yet, despite this, funding for the experimentation of his invention—which could save many lives—remains elusive.

Do leaders in positions of responsibility ostracize Crosetto because they feel accused of killing people, similar to how doctors in 1845 felt accused by Ignaz Semmelweis of killing pregnant women because they did not wash their hands during delivery (goo.gl/EJD9yU)?

As in Crosetto’s case, a public forum that would follow scientific procedure and implement transparency in science, as requested by Semmelweis to allow him to publicly respond to his colleagues’ objections, was never arranged.

In 1865, twenty years after his groundbreaking discovery and after enduring ostracism, Semmelweis was arrested and committed to an asylum, where he died of pyaemia after being beaten by guards—for standing by his scientific arguments.

Years after Semmelweis’s death, Nobel Prize winner Louis Pasteur confirmed Semmelweis’s germ theory. Statues, monuments, and even a university were later built in his honor. However, how many people needlessly died because of the delay in recognizing his findings?

Crosetto’s claims, calculations, and detailed designs from his 2000 book on the 3D-CBS invention—which can identify tumors with only 100 cancerous cells, well before they grow to over 1,000,000 cells detectable by CT, MRI, mammograms, etc.—have been validated by third parties.

Experimental data prove that early cancer detection can save more the 90% of premature cancer deaths. Who is responsible for their deaths?

To remove the guilt that leaders in positions of responsibility may feel for causing harm and potentially being remembered in history for obstructing transparency in science, delaying progress, and hindering benefits to humanity, wouldn’t it be logical to organize a public forum that would shift the responsibility to technical experts in various fields? These experts could then express their objections and attempt to refute Crosetto’s calculations and claims with their own. This would transfer responsibility to those experts.

Ultimately, instead of continuing to ostracize Crosetto and attempting to silence him, wouldn’t it make sense to allocate him a portion of the over $30 trillion already spent in R&D since his 3D-CBS invention in 2000? Specifically, with 0.00000067 of that amount he could build two 3D-CBS devices. This would allow experimental results to quantify how many lives a 3D-CBS device can save each year from premature cancer death when combined with prompt and successful existing treatment.

In the absence of this commitment to transparency in science, journalists should continue to publish Crosetto’s claims that his 3D-CBS invention can save many lives and reduce costs. They should also continue to challenge leaders in positions of responsibility to refute Crosetto’s calculations and claims, to engage in public debate with him, and to approve the experimentation of his invention, allowing the Laws of Nature to be the ultimate JUDGE.

Journalists and media outlets can take action to stop deceiving the public with so-called “MIRACLE CURES THAT WEREN’T,” as highlighted by Clifton Leaf, the chief editor of FORTUNE magazine, in his article published in the 22 March 2004 issue of Fortune (https://bit.ly/3VSDtZk), and many other articles. They can do this by implementing transparency in science and organizing public open forums where the honesty of scientists requesting funding is put to the test.

To test the honesty and integrity of a scientist seeking funding to eradicate cancer, they should be required to prepare a ROADMAP. This ROADMAP, summarized in a table similar to the one found here (https://bit.ly/3ova8Tz), should estimate the number of cancer deaths and costs that will be saved every year for the next 30 years based on their proposed strategy, whether it involves a drug, vaccine, educational programs on healthy eating and exercise, or the use of diagnostic tools like mammograms, colonoscopy, CT, MRI, ultrasound, PET, or other devices. The scientist should agree to defend their calculations and claims with scientific arguments in a public forum, comparing their project with other projects claiming to reduce cancer deaths and costs, and answer questions addressing the seven points outlined in Section 8.c. If a scientist refuses to present such a table or answer questions in a public forum, it raises suspicions about their competence or intentions.

Once funding is received, scientists should then test their proposed project on at least 10,000 people aged 55-74 from a location where the cancer mortality rate has been stable for the past 20 years (e.g., 0.5%). The resulting difference, or lack thereof, in the mortality rate will quantify the success or failure of the proposed solution.

Crosetto does not intend to deny funding for fundamental research, as he has dedicated over 30 years to fundamental research in particle physics, which typically yields benefits to society in areas like faster, more powerful computers and smartphones within 40 years. However, scientists should provide calculations and data demonstrating how their idea or invention will contribute to advancing science and how it compares to other approaches aimed at solving the same problem.

For instance, if the goal is to discover the unknown aspects of the Higgs boson or other particles to better understand the basic constituents of matter which could lead to future technological advancements, scientists are required to address and solve unprecedented challenges. To observe particles as close as possible to the origin of time, it is necessary to break matter into smaller pieces, which involves using a larger “hammer,” such as a particle accelerator, to smash particles at the speed of light, generating smaller particles with very short lifespans that decay in fractions of a second.

Scientists must invent and design powerful tools, architectures, and devices capable of receiving thousands of signals in parallel at very high speeds (every 25 nanoseconds) and executing complex, programmable algorithms that can identify unknown particles among a sea of noise.

Crosetto’s 3D-Flow parallel-processing technology-independent architecture, a breakthrough invention from 1992, solved this problem and remains superior, more advantageous, more performant, more flexible, and more cost-effective than any other system developed over the past three decades. These claims can be substantiated by comparing, in a transparent and open public forum, the parameters of 17 items listed in a two-page article (https://bit.ly/3b1SXoG) between the 3D-Flow system and any other trigger system with stringent requirements developed during the same period. The authors of these different Trigger systems should then question each other publicly.

Crosetto’s invention is not limited to the 3D-Flow parallel-processing technology-independent architecture; it includes several other inventions related to its implementation, offering advantages in higher performance and flexibility at a lower cost. These benefits extend to multiple applications, including the 3D-CBS Medical Imaging application.

To facilitate advancements in science, issues related to particle detection and the hindering of transparency in science at CERN must be addressed. For instance, in this specific case, it is crucial to identify the CERN service desk chief who deleted Crosetto’s email addressed to the CERN Director General, sent at 00:10 on May 6, 2024, instead of delivering it.

Since 8 April 2024, Crosetto has been in communication with CERN’s Service Desk, which manages the ticket related to his request for a meeting with Professor Fabiola Gianotti, Director-General of CERN. The ticket number was changed three times, with the last one being RQF2632480. On April 22, 2024, he received a message requesting that the ticket be closed, despite not having received a response.

The same thing happened in 2017 and 2019: Crosetto never received a response, and the ticket was closed.

The most recent message Crosetto received from CERN was on 6 August 2024, stating that his message was deleted without being read:

“From: Fabiola Gianotti <Fabiola.Gianotti@cern.ch>

Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 2:06 PM

To: crosettodario@gmail.com

Subject: Not read: RE: RQF2632480 “I respectfully request a meeting with CERN Director General before 17 May 2024 to address very important issues in particle physics that are advantageous not only to provide a powerful tool to discover unknown particles at a l…

was deleted without being read on Tuesday, August 6, 2024 9:06:03 PM”

However, an officer of CERN’s Service Desk had earlier acknowledged, in a phone conversation with Crosetto, the legitimacy of addressing the discrepancy between figures 3 on page 344 and figure 25 on page 370 of Crosetto’s peer-reviewed article (goo.gl/bqhD4R) and figure 7 in the CERN article (https://bit.ly/4d6ywCC) which highlights the less efficient and 100 times more expensive approach for the Trigger Systems implemented at CERN over the past three decades.

Demonstrating that an approach or project is more powerful, efficient, flexible, lower in cost, more accurate in identifying new particles, and more capable of saving lives compared to another is not accomplished by silencing, suppressing, or defunding a superior invention, idea, or approach. Scientists at leading institutions should take responsibility to adhere to the ethical standards of science, applying mathematical rules, logic, and, ultimately, endorsing the funding of experiments whose results would be the true judge.

In 1993, FERMILAB was the leading research center in physics with the most powerful Tevatron Accelerator (1 TeV), and its Director took responsibility by organizing a major international scientific review at the FERMILAB Auditorium in the presence of numerous scientists. Crosetto presented his breakthrough 3D-Flow invention, passed the review, received an immediate $150,000 grant, and was endorsed to receive an additional $1 million.

By 2010, CERN had become the leading research center with the world’s most powerful accelerator, surpassing 1 TeV (tera-electronvolt). Therefore, the responsibility of leadership in high-energy physics research was effectively transferred from Fermilab to CERN. Given this new position, it is reasonable to expect that CERN will organize a comprehensive one-day review of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention. This review, ideally held in the CERN Auditorium, should involve Crosetto’s presentation to a large number of scientists who are committed to upholding the principles of mathematics and logic, which will be followed by public meetings with specialists in different areas comparing cost-effective detector apparatus that accurately detect all possible signals from the tumor markers (photons). The focus of this review would be to thoroughly examine the advantages and benefits of the 3D-CBS invention. It’s important to highlight that these advantages and benefits arise from a combination of techniques Crosetto developed during his work in particle physics and other specific techniques designed to achieve cost-effectiveness in the field of medical imaging.

f) Individual Independent Inventors Lack Millions of Dollars for Legal Defense of Inventions Aimed at Benefiting Humanity: Are There Attorneys Who Believe in the Rule of Law, Willing to Work Pro-Bono or on Contingency, to Help Honest Inventors Secure Funding from Damages Awarded in Patent Infringement Cases?

At this point, someone might think that inventors are fully protected by patents, which should help them find funding to fully realize all their inventions.

Unfortunately, the reality is very different because a patent is worthless if the inventor does not have several million dollars to pay lawyers to defend it. Even when an inventor manages to convince a law firm to advance 10 million Euros for a patent lawsuit, there is still the risk of losing the case.

This happened to the Berlin group that invented the “Terravision” program in 1994, which Google copied in 2005 and called “Google Earth,” known to everyone.

Despite this, they still lost the case in court, as can be seen in the movie “The Billion Dollar Code.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYfvSt3hiVk).

A similar thing happened to Crosetto. After his positive experience of transparency in science, ethics by his colleagues scientists and fairness in 1993 when the Director of the Superconducting Super Collider in Texas, also Director of FERMILAB, organized a major international scientific review of his 3D-Flow invention that was formally and officially recognized as a breakthrough, he thought the same fairness would be exhibited for his other invention 3D-CBS (3-D Complete body Screening) in 2000, but things went differently.

Crosetto trusted the ethics of his colleagues scientists and distributed free of charge 200 copies of his book titled “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening” ISBN 0-9702897-0-7 (goo.gl/ggGGwF) detailing his invention to the influential leaders in the field at the most important international scientific conference in the world IEEE-NSS-MIC that in 2000 was held in Lyon, France.

Crosetto’s goal, as stated in the title of his book and supported in detail within its content, is to build a 3D-CBS device capable of providing cost-effective early cancer detection to save millions of lives. Simultaneously, he aims to offer a powerful, affordable tool for universities and research centers to advance in science, learning how the human body works by detecting minimal anomalous biological processes simultaneously across the entire body.

Funding Crosetto to build two prototypes should have been straightforward, either through a fair, ethical, and transparent scientific process that shares the $2 trillion available annually for research and development or by attracting investors interested in protecting the invention through patents, enabling them to recoup their investment.

Crosetto pursued both paths, however, neither path aligned with Crosetto’s goal of saving lives and reducing healthcare costs. His fellow scientists were primarily interested in a research tool for developing new drugs, mainly for late-stage cancer detection, which inadvertently contributes to the growth of the “cancer business.” On the other hand, investors were not motivated by saving lives but rather by maximizing profits for their shareholders, as clearly stated on their websites and mission statements.

More detailed information follows:

After receiving Crosetto’s book free of charge in 2000 and recognizing its potential, Crosetto’s colleagues, who were influential scientists, suppressed his publications and presentations at scientific conferences in the specialized field. In 2015, influential scientists from three U.S. universities secured a $15.5 million grant to build a version of the 3D-CBS. However, lacking the expertise to construct it themselves, they entrusted the funds to the Chinese company United Imaging Healthcare (UIH) to copy Crosetto’s idea (https://bit.ly/4444olr), resulting in a device called EXPLORER. Unfortunately, these scientists misdirected UIH, prioritizing the capture of “beautiful” high-resolution images at the expense of sensitivity and affordability. They opted for expensive, thin LSO crystals, which reduce the stopping power of signals (photons) from tumor markers, thereby making the device less efficient. This approach resulted in a device that is not only less suitable for saving lives but also more expensive and less efficient than Crosetto’s 3D-CBS.

On the second path, Crosetto gained the attention and interest of one of the largest law firms in the world, with offices on five continents, which prosecuted and secured patents for him in the U.S., the latest being granted in 2006 and 2007. Two attorneys, Robert Turner (https://bit.ly/4gmbHN5) and Steve Fluckiger (https://bit.ly/48fdjEc) went beyond their professional duties to personally support Crosetto’s invention, recognizing its potential benefits to humanity.

Later, one of the best law firms in Italy prosecuted Crosetto’s patent and secured it for Europe, including Italy. Crosetto continued to file patents in the U.S., Europe, China, Canada, Australia, and India, with the latest applications under examination in 2018. However, during this process, he learned that defending patents requires millions of dollars, which he does not have. As a result, the EXPLORER has been sold in the United States and recently in Italy to the Policlinic Sant’Orsola, and without significant financial resources, Crosetto cannot challenge companies infringing on his patents.

Crosetto lacks the millions of dollars needed to defend his intellectual property and has not found a sponsor aligned with his mission to build the 3D-CBS to save lives and reduce healthcare costs. The available funding is often directed towards research that develops new drugs for late-stage cancer detection, which increases the cancer business but does not provide a ROADMAP demonstrating a significant reduction in cancer deaths and costs.

In 2002, following the publication of Crosetto’s book (goo.gl/ggGGwF) claiming a 400+ times efficiency improvement over current PET devices, the President of Siemens Nuclear Medicine and the Director of the PET group visited his office in DeSoto, Texas, for a one-day meeting to verify whether his claims were backed by calculations and scientific evidence. Siemens, at that time, was the largest manufacturer of commercial PET devices.

The meeting, which was recorded with the consent of all seven participants, included a senior physicist with experience at U.S. National Laboratories, an executive professional from a large semiconductor company, and a government official.

Following a two-and-a-half-hour discussion on figure 14-1 on page 136 of the book (goo.gl/ggGGwF), Siemens’ officials were unable to refute Crosetto’s calculations and his assertion that the efficiency of their PET scanner could be improved by more than 400 times. Based on Crosetto’s explanation of the figure, they realized that this efficiency increase would be achieved through advancements in electronics, a longer detector, the detector assembly, and other inventions he had made. Furthermore, they understood that it was not necessary to use expensive LSO crystals, which would significantly increase the cost of the device, or the rare-earth Lutetium, which would limit the number of PET devices that could be produced.

After additional conference call meetings with Siemens’ Director of Research and the Director of the Electronics Group, who both appreciated Crosetto’s contributions and invention (engineers from General Electric also later recognized Crosetto’s valuable contributions to the field), his calculations and claims remained unrefuted. Despite this, Siemens chose not to pursue the 400-fold efficiency improvement for their PET devices as Crosetto had proposed. Instead, they continued manufacturing PET devices with short detectors using LSO crystals, likely because Siemens had already made substantial investments in building facilities for LSO crystal production (https://bit.ly/3hp68z3).

Soon after these meeting, Crosetto received a letter from Siemens stating that their marketing group had opted for a different strategy, continuing the production of PET devices with short detectors. However, the 2002 meeting proved beneficial to Siemens to increase the efficiency of their PET devices with short detectors by 70% through improvements in electronics—a possibility they had previously dismissed during the 2002 meeting. This improvement was announced on their website in 2007 (https://bit.ly/3pzyx8H).

In 2005, Siemens paid $1 billion to Michael Phelps and his associates at CTI to acquire the rights to develop PET devices with short detectors and expensive LSO crystals.

It wasn’t until 2020 that Siemens decided to increase the efficiency of their PET devices with a longer detector, as Crosetto had demonstrated in the 2002 meeting. This decision may have been prompted by a perceived threat to their market share from Chinese manufacturers who had confirmed (albeit on a less efficient and more costly version of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention with a long detector) that Crosetto’s calculations and claims in his 2000 book were accurate. Subsequently, Siemens promptly took four PET Siemens Biograph devices with 26 cm detector lengths and placed them side-by-side to extend the detector length to 1.06 meters, and called it the Biograph Quadra.

Regarding the Chinese company United Imaging Healthcare (UIH), which was commissioned by influential American scientists (https://bit.ly/3vk81UE) to copy Crosetto’s idea of a PET device with a long detector (Field of View), the evidence supporting the value of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention includes:

The correspondence between Crosetto and the leadership of UIH.
Crosetto’s two-hour presentation at UIH headquarters in Shanghai on November 19, 2018, attended by the President, CEO, several Vice-Presidents, and engineers of UIH.
The subsequent modification of UIH’s design to align more closely with Crosetto’s 3D-CBS concept.

These factors together strongly suggest that Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention holds significant value

Based on correspondence and the invitation to the headquarters of United Imaging Healthcare in Shanghai, Crosetto was led to believe there would be a collaborative effort aimed at developing the 3D-CBS. His interest was in targeting both research and saving lives through an accurate, highly sensitive, low-cost, and low-radiation cancer screening device. However, UIH ultimately chose to utilize only specific aspects of Crosetto’s inventions, such as the neighboring data exchange feature in their ASIC, to develop a tool primarily focused on research, which is not suitable for widespread lifesaving applications.

During the meeting in Shanghai on 19 November 2018, UIH engineers admitted that they were copying features from Crosetto’s design, such as the neighboring data exchange in their ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit), a fact later confirmed again on November 11, 2023, in a slide presented by their representative, Yang Lyu, at the IEEE-MIC Conference in Vancouver, Canada, as shown in Figure 5.

After Yang Lyu’s presentation, Crosetto inquired whether, he had at least cited in his article that the ASIC utilized the neighboring data exchange feature from Crosetto’s 3D-Flow architecture, which Crosetto had presented at United Imaging (UIH) headquarters in Shanghai on 19 November 2018. However, Simon Cherry, the session convener and leader of the EXPLORER project (https://bit.ly/3vk81UE) who had appropriated $15.5 million in a single grant and gave the U.S. taxpayer money to UIH due to their inability to build the 3D-CBS themselves, censored Crosetto’s question, effectively silencing this critical acknowledgment.

**Figure 5.** Slide presented by Yang Lyu from United Imaging Healthcare on 11 November 2023, at the IEEE-MIC conference in Vancouver, Canada, provides evidence that they copied features from Crosetto’s design, such as the neighboring data exchange in their ASIC. This figure also details the question Crosetto asked Yang Lyu, which was censored by the session convener, Simon Cherry, the leader of the EXPLORER project.

9. Crosetto Appeals to the Italian President Mattarella to Support the ‘RESISTANCE’ Against Injustice Toward Cancer Patients

a) Crosetto Urges Italian President Mattarella to Hold Leaders Accountable for Ignoring Science, Deleting Emails, and Suppressing Innovations that Can Save 400 Italian Defense Personnel Annually (with the Potential to Save 13,000 Lives Every Day Globally)

At this juncture, Crosetto appeals to the President of Italy, Honorable Sergio Mattarella, as the supreme authority loved by Italians who place in him their trust as the guarantor of the Constitution and Justice, who also serves as the commander-in-chief of the Italian Armed Forces and chair of the High Council of the Judiciary, revealing to him that two 3D-CBS devices could have already saved the lives of over 400 Italian Defense employees each year.

In light of President Mattarella’s words, which clearly explain the value of ‘RESISTANCE’ on various occasions, such as in Civitella on April 25, 2024 (https://bit.ly/3QynVGP), where he stated: ‘…Resistance was born, a movement… to establish a new coexistence, founded on law and peace’ and ‘That PEACE and that FREEDOM, which – finding ROOTS in the RESISTANCE…‘, Crosetto, after conducting a ‘RESISTANCE’ for 24 years to defend the rights of cancer patients and ensure justice from the results of the experiment, highlights that this goal is achievable only through funding that allows him to build two 3D-CBS devices.

Therefore, he appeals to President Mattarella to intercede, on behalf of cancer patients, urging the Director-General of CERN, the scientists of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (https://bit.ly/3qii6Dv), and expert scientists in the field not to ignore his inventions and legitimate scientific arguments. He asks them not to delete his emails but to respond with calculations and/or scientific evidence, providing references to projects and approaches they consider superior to his, followed by a public comparison.

Alternatively, if they cannot provide references to superior approaches, Crosetto requests that they recommend funding him with 0.00000067 of the over $30 trillion (i.e., $20 million) spent on research and development (R&D) since 2000, to allow him to conduct experiments using his 3D-CBS invention and leave the judgment to experimental results.

b) Crosetto Appeals to the Italian President Mattarella to Protect Generous Italians from Deceptive Organizations that Do Not Accept the Evidence of Their Failed 41-Year Strategy, Even When Shown the Increased Breast Cancer Deaths in Italy, While They Deliberately Suppress Experimentation of the 3D-CBS for Early Cancer Detection, Knowing It Could Have Already Saved Millions of Lives

Given that President Mattarella has sponsored the Susan G. Komen Foundation for several years, Crosetto asks him to act as a liaison to ensure that Susan G. Komen continues the public meeting with him that was interrupted on 3 July 2007. This meeting is crucial to provide Italians with a clear understanding of the strategy with the greatest potential to reduce cancer mortality, which will emerge from a public discussion with Crosetto and further explain how donations will be used. During the 3 July 2007, meeting, Komen scientists stated: ‘…if we can have better screening, this is what we need, and we know that!‘ and at minute 55:03 of https://bit.ly/3QU6kt3, they added: ‘Thank you so much and keep up with the good work, people like you will change the world!‘

We must be united to fight and defeat our common enemy: cancer.

It is essential that we all remain honest and respectful towards one another, especially towards cancer patients and donors who trust those promising to use their generosity to support the ROADMAP (https://bit.ly/3ova8Tz) that, in a public, transparent comparison, proves to have the greatest potential to defeat cancer.

We must face reality and accept scientific evidence from calculations and experiments, recognizing failures in reducing premature cancer mortality and acknowledge those approaches with greater potential to reduce premature cancer mortality.

Out of respect for the President of Italy, the Government, and Susan G. Komen, Crosetto will prepare an open letter with facts and data useful to donors, cancer patients, and the public to reflect on the most effective strategy in their interest to defeat cancer.

The executives of Susan G. Komen are aware that their educational program, on which they spend 51% of €100 to €200 million annually to promote healthy eating and physical exercise, is not effective.

How do they expect to teach Italians about healthy eating and exercise when Italians already live four years longer than Americans (https://bit.ly/3VtDzow)?

They should first teach Americans proper nutrition and exercise to achieve the same longevity as the Italians, rather than coming to Italy to collect millions of euros by misleading Italians with a program that actually shows an increase in breast cancer mortality.

The executives of Susan G. Komen are aware from scientific evidence that their program promoting healthy eating and exercise is ineffective and only serves as a fundraising tool, while the educational program of the Mormons on healthy living is effective, achieving a reduction in cancer mortality without exploiting cancer patients. It is scientifically recognized that a healthy diet and exercise benefit many aspects of health and lead to a longer life. However, the education provided by other groups, who do not specifically mention cancer, is more effective than that of Susan G. Komen.

There is evidence and proof spanning 41 years that the executives of Susan G. Komen have knowingly and deliberately deceived the public.

Is exploiting the misfortune and pain of cancer patients to raise funds legitimate, or is it a scam? Investigating how the funds are spent in relation to their public statements about reducing breast cancer mortality could add to the already existing evidence.

Are there attorneys who believe in the power of the Rule of Law, who work pro-bono or on contingency, and who are willing to examine the evidence in detail to freeze the funds raised by Susan G. Komen executives in Italy during the “Race for the Cure” events and use those funds to pay professionals who provide legal services to enforce the laws established by the Constitution and defend taxpayers?

10. Call to Action

Just as Crosetto did for the event on 25 April 2024, in Civitella (https://bit.ly/3xO6yvh) and the event on 12 May 2024, at the Circus Maximus in Rome (https://bit.ly/4byXOry), before the event starts, he will send the draft of an open letter to President Mattarella, the Government, and Susan G. Komen, asking them to identify any potentially illegitimate or illegal words or phrases to be removed before distributing it at the upcoming Race for the Cure events of the Susan G. Komen Foundation in Italy, in Bologna on September 22, 2024, and in Brescia and Matera on 29 September 2024.

a) Distribute Electronically Crosetto’s Draft Open Letter Seeking Input from Susan G. Komen Executives, the Italian President and Government, Law Enforcement, and Anyone Else to Identify Potentially Illegitimate or Illegal Words or Phrases for Removal. The Letter Will be Distributed at ‘Race for the Cure’ Events in Bologna (22 September 2024) and Brescia and Matera (29 September 2024).

If anyone identifies illegitimate or illegal words or phrases, they are invited to point them out, but it is not legitimate to suppress the freedom of expression of incontrovertible facts in defense of taxpayers, donors, and cancer patients. To avoid this, before distribution at the two past events, Crosetto had also sent the draft of the open letter to 60,000 Carabinieri. However, at the event in Rome on May 12, 2024, Crosetto was stopped by Dr. Cosimo Bari, Dirigente Commissariato Celio in Rome four hours after he had already distributed hundreds of copies of his open letter (https://bit.ly/4byXOry).

At 1:20 PM on May 12, 2024, Crosetto sought out the President of Komen-Italy, Prof. Riccardo Masetti, and managed to find him among the 150,000 participants and speak with him face-to-face.

Crosetto pointed out to Masetti that at the top right of the first page of the open letter (https://bit.ly/4byXOry), his email address riccardo.masetti@policlinicogemelli.it and the PEC address of Komen-Italy postacertificata@pec.komenitalia.it, were listed, as well as the general inbox info@komen.it to which he had sent the draft of this open letter two days before the event asking to identify any potentially illegitimate or illegal words or phrases to be removed.

Figure 6. Crosetto shows his poster (https://bit.ly/3ydfUkA) to Komen’s leaders on the two stages situated after the “Race for the Cure” arch. He stopped for several minutes in front of the organizers’ stages on the side of the road and was filmed several times by the cameras and photographers on both stages, as well as by the cameras on the mobile crane arms that filmed the procession, but the picture of his 3.5 meter-high poster, visible from afar and carried on his shoulders, did not appear in any news, nor his two-page open letter (https://bit.ly/4byXOry).

Figure 7. After carrying the poster (https://bit.ly/3ydfUkA) and distributing the open letter (https://bit.ly/4byXOry) for four hours at the “Race for the Cure”, Crosetto placed the poster outside the Komen’s Village to search for Komen-Italia’s president Riccardo Masetti, to ask why he had stopped the distribution of his open letter. People entering Komen’s Village stopped to read the poster, but while Crosetto was inside the Village, his poster was hidden in between garbage cans to prevent people from seeing it.

Not having received a response, Crosetto proceeded with the distribution, but now that Masetti had prohibited the distribution, Crosetto wanted to know personally from him which word or phrase Prof. Masetti considered illegitimate or illegal. To this question, Masetti did not respond, even after Crosetto noted that reading one page and one column of the letter would take less than 10 minutes and could be done on the spot.

However, Masetti did not want to specify which word or phrase he considered illegitimate or illegal; instead he promise to respond via email within a day or two. After a week passed without receiving a response, on 19 May 2024, Crosetto wrote a letter (https://bit.ly/4aYIhRf) to Prof. Masetti, copied to the President of Italy, Honorable Sergio Mattarella; the President of the Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic Foundation IRCC, Dr. Carlo Fratta Pasini; the General Director, Dr. Marco Elefanti; the Scientific Director, Dr. Giovanni Scambia; and the Medical Director, Dr. Andrea Cambieri of the same Institute.

The subject of the email was: “I am waiting for you to indicate the potentially illegitimate or illegal word or phrase in the attached document that caused your prohibition of the distribution I was carrying out on May 12, 2023, in Rome.” However, to this day, Crosetto has not received an indication of the word or phrase that Prof. Masetti considers illegitimate or illegal, which led to prohibition (or an unjustified censure) of the distribution after 1:20 PM on May 12, 2024, at the Circus Maximus in Rome.

b) Join the Distribution of Crosetto’s Open Letter at the Fundraising Events for the Alleged Susan G. Komen ‘Race for the Cure’ to Inform and Protect Italians from Deception: Seeking Police and Carabinieri Protection During the Distribution of the Open Letter. Those Blocking the Distribution of a Pre-Submitted Open Letter Will Be Reported for Violating Freedom of Speech (Article 11 https://bit.ly/3VgdDgj)

For the events in September 2024, Crosetto will send the draft of the open letter also to the Police Headquarters and Police Stations of Italy, posing the same question, specifically to ensure the right to express information that is not illegitimate or illegal. He will also request protection from law enforcement during the distribution.

Figure 8. On 12 May 2024, Crosetto carries the poster (https://bit.ly/3ydfUkA) and distributed his open letter (https://bit.ly/4byXOry) for four hours at the “Race for the Cure” in Rome.

Figure 9. Crosetto continues distributing his open letter (https://bit.ly/4byXOry) at the “Race for the Cure” and answers questions.

Figure 10. Crosetto continues distributing his open letter (https://bit.ly/4byXOry) at the “Race for the Cure” and answers questions.

c) Take Responsibility Against Injustice: Inform Journalists at RAI, Italian National Radio-Television Who Are Paid by Taxpayers, and at ‘Il Fatto Quotidiano’, as Well as Any Journalist, Newspaper, and Television Working in the Public Interest, About this Document and About the three decades of Documented ‘RESISTANCE’ Against Injustice and the Suppression of Truth in Defense of Science and Cancer Patients

Take Responsibility Against Injustice: Inform Journalists and Radio-Television Professionals Working in the Public Interest About the Open Letter and the Three Decades of Documented Resistance Against Injustice and the Suppression of Truth in Defense of Science and Cancer Patients

‘We urgently need – concludes Crosetto – courageous journalists who can present the facts, which I have extensively documented in thousands of pages and hundreds of video recorded seminars (https://bit.ly/44ZxXqw), regarding the obstacles that prevent transparency in science and the refusal to provide the necessary funding to build two 3D-CBS devices for experiments that demonstrate their ability to halve premature cancer deaths and costs.'”

At the event on May 12, 2024, in Rome, Crosetto passed under the ‘Race for the Cure‘ arch and stopped for several minutes in front of the two organizers’ booths set up just after the arch, on the side of the road. He was filmed multiple times by the cameras and photographers on the two stages, as well as by the cameras on the mobile crane arms that filmed the procession.

However, the images of his poster, carried on his shoulders, 3.5 meters high and visible from afar (https://bit.ly/3ydfUkA), did not appear in any news coverage, and his open letter (https://bit.ly/4byXOry), which was distributed in hundreds of copies, was not mentioned in any newspaper article, either in print or online. Similarly, no article or interview was reported following the dozens of emails sent via PEC to RAI and Il Fatto Quotidiano which informed them about this issue from 2 February 2023.

11. What Matters Is to Take Responsibility, Be Honest, Speak Up and Act Upon what your Mind Considers Logical, Scientific, and in Compliance with the Rule of Law, and What Your Heart and Conscience Consider Humane.

Crosetto’s recurrent approach, when analyzing and presenting a situation, issue, or problem whether in scientific articles or seminars delivered worldwide on the Meetup.com platform in English, French, and Italian, is to illustrate the relation, contribution, and effectiveness of a specific project, electronic circuit, program, claim, or action in achieving the overall goal to solve a problem.

Success in effectively solving a problem is crucial to identifying the relationship between a specific project or action within the bigger picture and then promoting dialogue, which is essential for civil and humane interaction.

For example, in Crosetto’s scientific peer-reviewed article (goo.gl/bqhD4R) describing the implementation of the CERN-LHCb Level-0 trigger with the 3D-Flow system, on page 349, Figure 7, he illustrates the physical layout of the entire Trigger, and on page 350, figure 8, and its logical layout.

In the following figures detailing circuits of the Trigger system: Figure 16, on page 360; Figure 23, on page 368; Figure 24, on page 369; Figure 27, on page 372; Figure 29, on page 374 and Figure 32, on page 378, he shows on the upper right corner of the figure the logical layout of Figure 7 of the entire trigger with a dot indicating the position and relation of the detailed circuit within the entire trigger system and on the upper left corner its location in the physical layout of Figure 8.

This representation helps readers establish the relationship between the small details within the overall system and its contribution and efficacy in achieving the overall goal.

Another example of his approach is found in the seminars. Crosetto delivered seminars worldwide through the Meetup.com platform in English on 10 June 2013, (https://bit.ly/3Xtp9XU), in French on 8 July 2013 (https://bit.ly/47c66EN), and in Italian on 24 June 2013 (https://bit.ly/3ASxf3q). On slides 2, 3, and 9, Crosetto defined the “Social Objective” to substantially reduce cancer deaths through early detection, and in slide 15, the “Technical Objectives” to detect, at the molecular level, changes in body cells: in form, structure, and metabolism or biological process.

Throughout the entire presentation, at specific slides that have a relation to the overall social objective achievable by implementing the technical objectives of the specific slide, he recalls the “Social Objectives” in the upper left corner of the slide and the “Technical Objectives” in the upper right corner of the slide. He did this for slides 21-22, 24-27, and 37 for the English (https://bit.ly/3Xtp9XU) and French (https://bit.ly/47c66EN) version and in slides 27-28, 30-33 and 42 for the Italian version (https://bit.ly/3ASxf3q).

Crosetto’s interest has also been to present to elementary and high school students concepts dealt with at research centers to solve challenging, sophisticated problems.

In 1979 he wrote a book titled “Trip through the Universe” with the theoretical physicist Tullio Regge, renowned for the “Regge poles,” and first accompanied him and then went alone to elementary and middle school classes to present 100 slides from telescopes, satellites, and didactical drawings explaining the Universe, the characteristics of the planets, and how stars are born and die. For example, to explain Jupiter’s characteristics, he drew an analogy between Jupiter and a pot of bean soup, where hot beans rise to the cooler surface and then, as they cool, sink back down, creating a continuous cycle of movement.

The book was sold to schools for several years by the editor SEI (Societa’ Editrice Internazionale) in Turin, and Crosetto continued his seminars on the Trip through the Universe in Dallas to different groups (French, Italian, German, cancer support groups, etc.).

Crosetto also collaborated with the largest Montessori School, St. Alcuin in Dallas, Texas and started to develop “hands on” activity cards so that teachers could conduct the exercise on their own. He structured the activity card with all necessary information on one page and also created a guideline card goo.gl/otjofZ on how to create different activity cards for different subjects. The following are some examples of activity cards created by Crosetto: goo.gl/ZVMbWo, goo.gl/s1bN2o, goo.gl/GLUiYU, goo.gl/FrfxJg, goo.gl/khvPVR, goo.gl/hGA5hq, goo.gl/rKvKdq, goo.gl/aY4ANa, goo.gl/KzLs2a, goo.gl/6kkURT, goo.gl/BDwaLg, goo.gl/5CnSA6, goo.gl/JQa4MZ.

In 2004, the Montessori school in Toronto, Canada, one of the largest in the world, commissioned Crosetto to create a timeline of life that he created as shown in Figure 11.

It is a 4.5-meter poster titled “The Time Line of Life” which illustrates the evolution of life on Earth over the last 750 million years, with 1 cm equal to 2 million years.

On the top-left of the poster, Crosetto crafted a Life Timeline depicting Earth’s 4.5 billion years on a 12-hour clock that showcases Precambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic eras.

Contrasting this with our human lifespan (less than one millisecond, or 100 years), it emphasizes the brevity of our existence (goo.gl/2ZUUvp). This underscores the importance of cherishing every second, sharing positive experiences with others, and avoiding harm to people and the planet, a sentiment that Crosetto expressed in 14 slides, in a 14-minute video in 9 languages at (https://bit.ly/4cWD790).

He illustrated the evolution of around ten main creatures (algae, fish, birds, etc.) on a 12-foot poster, with the line thickness indicating species populations and extinction events, like trilobites 250 million years ago and dinosaurs 66 million years ago. Representing species such as cockroaches (present for 360 million years), the first jawed fish 400 million years ago, reptiles, mammals, and the first primate 33 million years ago.

At the poster’s lower end, he depicted Earth’s geological evolution, including glacial periods and the Pangea period (400 million to 200 million years ago). Creatures faced population declines or extinction due to volcanic and meteorite dust 250 million and 66 million years ago, making the air challenging for animals over 25 kg to breathe. This caused the extinction of dinosaurs 66 million years ago. The poster contains extensive didactic information that would take pages to describe.

Crosetto also summarized his vision that we are all guests for a short time on this planet in the following four paragraphs:

“As temporary guests on Earth’s 4.5 billion-year timeline, let’s learn from the instinctive mutual care seen in animals. With no wealth beyond the grave, let’s embrace creative altruism. Let’s choose to share the joy of the most beautiful moments with fellow Earth guests, respecting others, creatures, nature, and our planet, leaving a lasting legacy. Let’s embrace truthfulness. Let’s choose a path of compassion for positive impact during our fleeting presence. Let’s not refuse the DIALOGUE that unveils our common humanity, enabling us to expose and correct inhumanity and abuse of power.

The abuse of power, which infringes upon human rights and dignity, can be effectively challenged through dialogue. It is crucial for us to learn how to address problems or disagreements through an open, constructive DIALOGUE where both parties can freely express their ideas and listen to each other. Subsequently, responses should be grounded in logic, references to the laws of nature (science), adherence to the rule of law, and the application of the Golden Rule. Be tolerant, learn how to discuss with people with different ideas.

In instances where disagreements persist, resolution should be pursued with a spirit of reconciliation, taking into account the interests of all parties involved. Finding a solution necessitates mutual respect, recognizing the independence of each party while fostering a spirit of agreement and respect.

A party should refrain from advocating the destruction of another party or disregarding their existence with illegitimate reasons. DIALOGUE is essential for civil and humane interaction, acknowledging everyone’s right to be on this planet.”

– Dario Crosetto

Figure 11. Timeline of life. A 12 feet poster that Crosetto created on April 8^th, 2004, commissioned by the Director of the largest Montessori school in the world that is in Toronto, Canada. The poster provides information regarding the 4.5 billion year of the earth, detailing the evolution of life on earth during the last 700 million year (1 cm = 2 million year).

Understanding Human Evolution and the Role of the Judicial System in Sustaining Civilizations

Among all the creatures inhabiting this planet, Crosetto has focused on gaining a deeper understanding of human evolution by analyzing how progress was made in various civilizations.

Civilizations that have endured the longest were those with a well-established code of conduct, enforced by a judicial system that citizens were obliged to follow, protecting their rights and ensuring peaceful coexistence for centuries.

To comprehend the causes of setbacks in any country, whether Italy or elsewhere, and to find ways to address and resolve them, it is beneficial to observe how different nations’ judicial systems operate today, as well as how they functioned historically. As President Mattarella has rightly stated, “without memory, there is no future.” Examining judicial systems across millennia reveals that they are central to the survival of any civilization.

Insights from Historical Timelines and the Role of the Judicial System

During a vacation in Virginia on 5 June 2024, Crosetto visited the Chrysler Museum of Art in Norfolk, where he encountered Timelines showcasing the approximate dates (https://bit.ly/4eCpzlh) of major civilizations on this planet (Egyptian, Mayan, Greek, and Roman). These civilizations thrived in the development of art, mathematics, culture, and philosophy because their judicial systems enforced rules that allowed for peaceful coexistence among their citizens.

The duration of these civilizations, as depicted in the Timelines, highlights the crucial role of the judicial system in the survival of any country and a civilized world.

The Decline of Civilizations Due to Dysfunctional Judicial Systems

An ineffective judicial system can contribute to the decline of civilization in several ways, including fostering anarchy, rampant corruption, loss of trust in institutions, and social and political instability.

Historical examples supporting this claim include:

The Roman Empire: The fall of the Western Roman Empire was partly due to the corruption and ineffectiveness of its judicial system. As corruption spread, the state’s ability to enforce laws weakened, leading to social unrest and the decline of civil institutions.
The French Revolution: In the late 18th century, France faced severe social inequality and legal injustice. The judicial system was perceived as corrupt and biased, favoring the aristocracy and oppressing the lower classes. This perception of injustice was a significant factor in the outbreak of the French Revolution.
Imperial Russia: Before the Russian Revolution of 1917, Russia was characterized by an ineffective and corrupt judicial system. The lack of justice and the legal system’s inability to address the people’s needs fueled discontent, leading to the revolution and the fall of the Russian Empire.
The Weimar Republic: During the Weimar Republic in Germany (1919-1933), the judicial system was often seen as ineffective in maintaining order and combating political extremism. The inability to enforce laws and protect citizens’ rights contributed to political and social instability, facilitating the rise of Nazism.

Conclusion: Upholding the Rule of Law as a Pillar of Civilization

These examples demonstrate how a dysfunctional judicial system can play a crucial role in the decline of a civilization. To preserve and enhance the quality of life within any society, it is imperative to ensure that the judicial system is effective, impartial, and committed to upholding the rule of law. In doing so, we not only safeguard the rights and freedoms of citizens but also contribute to the long-term stability and prosperity of our civilization.

Figure 12. Timelines at the Chrysler Museum of Art in Norfolk. The exhibit showcases the approximate dates of major civilizations on this planet, including Egyptian, Mayan, Greek, and Roman.

Dario Crosetto’s Engagement with DeSoto Dining & Dialogue (DDD)

Dario Crosetto, a 33-year resident of DeSoto, Texas, has participated in the DeSoto Dining & Dialogue (DDD) program for 15 years, served on the DDD Board of Directors for 10 years, and hosted numerous DDD dinners at his home. These dinners have been attended by a variety of community members, including several mayors, superintendents of the DeSoto Independent School District, City Council members, and DDD Board members, as evidenced by photos at (https://bit.ly/3HRcmWq).

Crosetto’s Vision for DDD (DeSoto Dining and Dialogue) Mission: “The mission of DDD is to foster community engagement and facilitate meaningful conversations among residents, which are vital for achieving a true democracy that goes beyond majority rule. It is about upholding the Rule of Law and serving the best interests of all citizens. It involves fostering inclusive and respectful dialogue where participants actively listen to diverse viewpoints and respond with logic and reason, referencing rules or laws, rather than resorting to ignoring issues, excluding people (mobbing), insults or aggression. This approach prioritizes logical and humane decisions, ensuring that the voices of minorities and marginalized groups are heard and considered for the benefit of all citizens, providing valuable insights to the city council regarding the community’s needs and priorities.”

The DDD mission statement, as summarized above, suggests a deeper understanding of democracy that extends beyond the simple notion of majority rule. Let’s analyze the key concepts and elaborate on their meanings:

1. True Democracy Beyond Majority Rule:

The statement begins with “a true democracy is not merely the power of the majority,” emphasizing that democracy should not be reduced to a mere numbers game where the majority always gets its way. While a simplistic view might see democracy as a system where decisions are made by majority vote, this perspective overlooks the importance of minority rights, justice, and fairness.

2. Dialogue as a Central Element:

The statement highlights the importance of dialogue, meaning open and constructive conversations among all members of society. In a true democracy, dialogue enables the exchange of ideas, opinions, and perspectives. It is through this dialogue that diverse viewpoints are considered, leading to more informed and balanced decisions. Dialogue helps ensure that the voices of minorities and marginalized groups are heard and taken into account, not just the majority.

3. Upholding the Rule of Law:

“Compliance with the Rule of Law” is fundamental in a true democracy. All actions and decisions must align with established legal principles and frameworks. The Rule of Law guarantees that no one is above the law and that laws are applied equally to everyone. In a true democracy, dialogue should guide the process of identifying what is legal and just, ensuring that decisions are made within the bounds of the law.

4. Logical and Humane Considerations:

The statement mentions the importance of what is “most logical and humane.” In decision-making, logic refers to reasoned and rational thought, while humane considerations imply compassion and respect for human dignity. A true democracy should not be solely about what the majority wants, but also about what is reasonable, just, and compassionate. This means making decisions that are fair and respectful for all people, particularly those who might be vulnerable or disadvantaged.

5. Respect and Interest of the Citizen:

Finally, the statement stresses the “respect and interest of the citizen.” This means that democratic processes should prioritize the well-being and rights of all citizens. It involves respecting individual liberties and ensuring that the public’s interests are protected. In a true democracy, the government and its institutions should work in the interest of the people, safeguarding their rights and promoting their well-being.

Conclusion:

The concept of true democracy goes far beyond the simple rule of the majority. It emphasizes the crucial role of fostering respectful and inclusive dialogue that upholds the Rule of Law, promotes rational and scientific decision-making, and prioritizes compassion. This approach underscores the importance of considering the rights and interests of all citizens, ensuring that decisions are made fairly and justly. Ultimately, a true democracy seeks to find a balance between the interests of the majority and the rights of minorities, adhering to legal principles and ethical considerations to create a more just and humane society. -Dario Crosetto

“A true democracy is not merely the power of the majority,
but the dialogue that finds a balance
between the interests of the majority and the rights of minorities,
adhering to legal principles
and ethical considerations
that promote a rational and scientific decision-making process
and prioritizes compassion
to create
a more just and humane society.”

– Dario Crosetto

References:

For detailed insights into Crosetto’s work, please refer to the links provided on the left side of this document (https://bit.ly/49k7GF9) and to the related article (https://bit.ly/46GWu40) approved in 2023 by the world’s most important scientific conference in the field, entitled: “3D-Flow, 3D-CBS and TB-CAD inventions create a revolutionary paradigm change in the practice of medicine,” and the Table, roadmap (https://bit.ly/3ova8Tz) to globally save over 100 million lives from premature cancer death in 30 years and over $27 trillion.

If you agree with Cosetto’s goal to convey his inventions to future generations and demand transparency in science ROADMAPS to address/solve the most pressing societal problems, please consider making a donation to the non-profit, tax-exempt 501 (c3):

‘Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths’ at the bank account cc. 96-2079895 at Frost Bank, 3801 Matlock Rd, Arlington, TX 76015 – ABA: 114000093 – SWIFT: FRSTUS44 –or PayPal at https://crosettofoundation.org/donate-now/

The information about the foundation, including financial details, which has received the Gold Seal for Transparency for eight consecutive years from GuideStar.org, is available at https://www.guidestar.org/profile/03-0544575.

Press Contact:
Dario Crosetto, President of the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths
Phone: 1-469-747-5669
Email: crosetto@crosettofoundation.org

Information, Awareness, Prevention / United to End Cancer

The Future is in Our Hands

Contact

Applause for the Big Hearts of Italians: 150,000 Respond to the Call to Defeat Cancer, But Do They Need Protection from Exploitation?

Table of Contents

1. Applause for the Big Hearts of Italians: 150,000 Respond to the Call to Defeat Cancer, But Do They Need Protection from Exploitation?

2. Did Komen Executives Know in 2007 What Saves Lives and What Does Not?

3. Outrage: Komen Executives Request Deletion of Evidence Showing Their Knowledge of Life Saving Methods

4. Sixteen Years Later, Facts Show Komen’s Eradication Strategy for Breast Cancer Fails, While Crosetto’s Early Cancer Detection Invention Is Confirmed Correct by Experimental Results

5. Why Invest in a Strategy Known from the Start to Be Ineffective Against Cancer?

6. Why Has Funding Experimentation for Crosetto’s 3D-CBS Invention Been Suppressed for 24 Years? Proven Effective for Early Cancer Detection, it Could Save Millions of Lives and Reduce Costs

7. Crosetto’s Funding Ceased After Proposing Low-Cost Cancer Screening Test of All Organs of the Body in 2 Minutes and a ROADMAP to Defeat Cancer

8. Crosetto’s ‘RESISTANCE: Fighting Injustice and the Suppression of Scientific Truth in Defense of Science and Cancer Patients.

a) Honest Intentions Are Key to Solving the Cancer Problem. Leaders Should Not Betray Public Trust. The Public Should Verify Claims Made in False Advertisements and Speak Up Against Illogical Actions That Harm Humanity.”

b) Why Spend 21 Million Euros on a Commercial Chinese Copy of the 3D-CBS Called EXPLORER, Which Is Not Suitable to Save Many Lives, Knowing that 20 Million Euros Could Fund Two 3D-CBS Prototypes and Provide 3.5 Million Euros for Commercial 3D-CBS Devices that Can Save Many Lives and Reduce Costs?

c) Where’s the ROADMAP for using the 21 Million Euro Chinese Copy? Is it Designed to Save Lives or to Develop New Drugs to Fuel the Late-Stage Cancer Business?

d) Can the Judicial System Protect Cancer Patients from Exploitation by Those Who Raise Money in Their Name for Personal Gain?

9. Crosetto Appeals to the Italian President Mattarella to Support the ‘RESISTANCE’ Against Injustice Toward Cancer Patients

a) Crosetto Urges Italian President Mattarella to Hold Leaders Accountable for Ignoring Science, Deleting Emails, and Suppressing Innovations that Can Save 400 Italian Defense Personnel Annually (with the Potential to Save 13,000 Lives Every Day Globally)

10. Call to Action

11. What Matters Is to Take Responsibility, Be Honest, Speak Up and Act Upon what your Mind Considers Logical, Scientific, and in Compliance with the Rule of Law, and What Your Heart and Conscience Consider Humane.

1. Applause for the Big Hearts of Italians: 150,000 Respond to the Call to Defeat Cancer, But Do They Need Protection from Exploitation?

2. Did Komen Executives Know in 2007 What Saves Lives and What Does Not?

3. Outrage: Komen Executives Request Deletion of Evidence Showing Their Knowledge of Life Saving Methods

4. Sixteen Years Later, Facts Show Komen’s Eradication Strategy for Breast Cancer Fails, While Crosetto’s Early Cancer Detection Invention Is Confirmed Correct by Experimental Results

5. Why Invest in a Strategy Known from the Start to Be Ineffective Against Cancer?

6. Why Has Funding Experimentation for Crosetto’s 3D-CBS Invention Been Suppressed for 24 Years? Proven Effective for Early Cancer Detection, it Could Save Millions of Lives and Reduce Costs

7. Crosetto’s Funding Ceased After Proposing Low-Cost Cancer Screening Test of All Organs of the Body in 2 Minutes and a ROADMAP to Defeat Cancer

We should all be united against cancer, consider all ROADMAPS to defeat it, and publicly discuss which provides the highest reduction of cancer deaths and costs.

8. Crosetto’s ‘RESISTANCE: Fighting Injustice and the Suppression of Scientific Truth in Defense of Science and Cancer Patients.

a) Honest Intentions Are Key to Solving the Cancer Problem. Leaders Should Not Betray Public Trust. The Public Should Verify Claims Made in False Advertisements and Speak Up Against Illogical Actions That Harm Humanity.”

b) Why Spend 21 Million Euros on a Commercial Chinese Copy of the 3D-CBS Called EXPLORER, Which Is Not Suitable to Save Many Lives, Knowing that 20 Million Euros Could Fund Two 3D-CBS Prototypes and Provide 3.5 Million Euros for Commercial 3D-CBS Devices that Can Save Many Lives and Reduce Costs?

c) Where’s the ROADMAP for using the 21 Million Euro Chinese Copy? Is it Designed to Save Lives or to Develop New Drugs to Fuel the Late-Stage Cancer Business?

d) Can the Judicial System Protect Cancer Patients from Exploitation by Those Who Raise Money in Their Name for Personal Gain?

9. Crosetto Appeals to the Italian President Mattarella to Support the ‘RESISTANCE’ Against Injustice Toward Cancer Patients

a) Crosetto Urges Italian President Mattarella to Hold Leaders Accountable for Ignoring Science, Deleting Emails, and Suppressing Innovations that Can Save 400 Italian Defense Personnel Annually (with the Potential to Save 13,000 Lives Every Day Globally)

10. Call to Action

11. What Matters Is to Take Responsibility, Be Honest, Speak Up and Act Upon what your Mind Considers Logical, Scientific, and in Compliance with the Rule of Law, and What Your Heart and Conscience Consider Humane.