September 21, 2021
Is there a journalist with the courage to tell the truth
“The Ethics and Integrity of the Scientific Community have gone back 500 years”
Why the Scientific Community has suppressed for 21 years and continue to suppress inventions proving to save millions of lives and trillions of dollars?
The scientific committee of the Total Body PET conference in Edinburgh, 22-24 September 2021, approves my abstract showing in the “results” that my 3D-CBS invention can save over 100 million lives and over $27 trillion in 30 years and in the “conclusions” that an experimental test on a sample population would definitively prove it, but they suppress this information to the world by not allowing me to present it at the conference.
This suppression of my inventions that could have already saved over 20 million lives and over $10 trillion in the past 20 years is consistent with the actions during the past 21 years by the scientific community suppressing my scientific book, my articles, my presentations at Scientific Conferences attended by the influential scientists deciding the future of research in this field, just like Galileo’s book “The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” (https://bit.ly/3zlnuUX) was suppressed for 100 years without refuting his calculations and claims that the earth was not at the center of the Universe.
Likewise, the scientific community did not refute my calculations and scientific evidence in my “Material and method” and in “Background” sections, that my inventions can save millions of lives and trillions of dollars, but they continue to suppress their benefits for 21 years and do not want the world to know, denying my presentation and explanations to colleagues, without including my inventions in the agenda for discussion in open public forum and round tables.
Why the Scientific Community does not want to inform the public of the possibility to save millions of lives and trillions of dollars with my inventions?
Since I was not able to reach the Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh by writing an email to her collaborators, I appeal to journalists to inform the public and Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal Anne of Edinburgh who hold the position of Chancellor, the highest in the University of Edinburgh who confers degrees and enhances the profile and reputation of the University on national and global levels asking her to guarantee transparency in science and making the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge from open scientific forum.
Like million of other people in the world, over the past few months I have witnessed the pain and suffering of a person very dear to me due to the fact that there were no affordable examinations, procedures, or techniques capable of detecting the primary 2.5 cm tumor (with more than two billion cancerous cells) on her appendix that had been present between four and ten years. What happened to her could happen to any of us.
The surgeon who operated on the person very dear to me for 11 hours and 46 minutes, who performed hundreds of operations on cancer patients, did not request a PET (Positron Emission Tomography) exam because she knew from experience that it would show negative results on small tumors that she was interested in knowing, but instead when she opened the patient’s body she found tumors. She preferred to request a CT to have a floorplan of the organs to plan her surgery. So, what is the role of the more than 10,000 PET devices used in hospitals? Mainly to monitor the effect of a drug or treatments for large tumors.
Since 21 years ago I invented 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening goo.gl/ggGGwF) which can detect clusters (tumors) with fewer than 100 cancer cells, on September 16th, 2021, I wrote to the participants and organizers of the Total Body PET Conference reporting my sad experience (See below published on several social media and at https://bit.ly/3Aks5bd), underlining the importance of every scientist taking responsibility for addressing this problem. (In 2019, after 19 years, measurements on less efficient and more expensive copies of my 3D-CBS invention proved that my calculations and claim in my book of the year 2000 that can detect clusters with fewer than 100 cancerous cells were correct).
On September 19, 2021, I responded to Adriana Tavares, Chair of the Total Body PET conference (See below published on several social media and at https://bit.ly/3EsJfGh) explaining that scientists should provide calculations and scientific arguments to support their statements not a “SCORE”.
On the same day I also wrote to Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal Anne of Edinburgh. Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh (See below published on several social media and at https://bit.ly/2Zd1oaW) asking on behalf of cancer patients and humanity to guarantee transparency in science and making the scientific truth emerge from open scientific forum.
#######################
2021-09-16, Letter to the presenters and organizers of the Total Body PET Conf. in Edinburgh, 22-24 Sept. 2021
Document in pdf at: https://bit.ly/3Aks5bd;
Blog: https://bit.ly/3AwJj5z
Facebook in English: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=4495230427179525&id=114803041888974
Video YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn4_ZLyjWY8
#######################
2021-09-19, Response to Adriana Tavares, Chair Total Body PET Conf. in Edinburgh, 22-24 Sept. 2021
Document in pdf at: https://bit.ly/3EsJfGh;
Blog: https://bit.ly/3zqaMV4
Facebook in English: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=4505216022847632&id=114803041888974
Video YouTube at: https://youtu.be/bH7T4Z2T51A
#######################
2021-09-19, Letter to Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal Anne of Edinburgh:
Document in pdf at: https://bit.ly/2Zd1oaW;
Blog: https://bit.ly/3zq7zVe
Facebook in English: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=4505224232846811&id=114803041888974
Video YouTube at: https://youtu.be/xSf4IhwmJs0
Is The Ethics and Integrity of the Scientific Community gone back 500 years when no one stood up for science, suppressing Galileo’s book of the dialogue because no one could refute his calculations and scientific evidence in a dialogue as no one can refute my calculations and scientific evidence when comparing them in a dialogue with others and showing more advantages and benefits?
Their power in 1500 to suppress the truth stood 100 years by suppressing “the dialogue”.
How long will last the power to suppress the truth by today’s Scientific Community that continue to suppress the dialogue?
I am not the only one raising these concerns that we need to FIX SCIENCE. The October 2018 issue of Scientific American which states on pages 54-55: “Funding is largely concentrated in the hands of a few investigators … … “Much like Mafia clans…”. These are general accusations which do not help to address and fix the problem. Journalists should be open to listen the detail.
The organizers of the Conference did not correct the mistake of suppressing my presentation which shows evidence in the abstract to have higher scientific merits and benefits to humanity, that they did not refute, in providing results in saving millions of lives and trillions of dollars with the possibility to prove my fundamental claim of saving lives on a sample population (although at a much higher cost on existing machines, copy of my 3D-CBS invention that are more expensive and less efficient). None of the other presenters claimed their abstract/project/presentation provide more benefits than mine and did not give up 10% of their allotted time to let me present benefits from my abstracts to colleagues.
Instead of letting me present my 3D-CBS lifesaving project to the audience and include it in the agenda of the round table, seven hours after sending my last two email, I received 52 pages (https://bit.ly/3EIlhqr) of the final copy of the program of the Total Body PET Conference excluding my presentation to the audience and my 3D-CBS lifesaving project was not included in the agenda of the topics to be discussed at the round table.
Now that we have all the abstract everyone can see the scientific merits of one project with respect to another.
It is relatively easy to make emerge the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity. Last year the organizers of the conference solicited the submission of abstracts being structured in four sections, 1) Background, 2) Material and methods, 3) Results, and 4) Conclusions. The total number of words should not exceed 300 and the author could attach one figure.
The first judge of the scientific merit of each abstract may be the author taking his/her stated expected “Results” (typically two to three lines of text) and estimates the difference in the reduction in cancer deaths and costs when his/her gadget/idea/program is adopted and used by someone in a test on a sample population and when is not used. The difference determines the contribution of his/her project and one can see if it matches what the author stated in the “Conclusion”.
This verification can be done by a journalist or a person not expert in the field because the answer is provided by the author who later should support his/her claim with calculations and scientific evidence in the “Background” and “Material and Methods” sections.
I glanced through the 35-abstract and I just remark the following on two of them, but I can read more:
- The first abstract at page 6 of https://bit.ly/3EIlhqr by the title “Spatial resolution of long axial field of view PET design with monolithic detectors – Simulation study”. The author Abi Aki states in the Results: “The FWHM of the line profile in both radial and tangential discretions shows a clear improvement when smaller bins are considered”. My comment: “Did the author had a doubt that a larger bin could provide an improved resolution with respect to a smaller bin? Why the author is focusing improving spatial resolution for PET which is measuring a variable within a time unit (e.g. counting the valid pairs of 511 keV photons within a second or minute)? Why a manufacturer of a water meter does not specify that has a resolution of 2 mm, but of Gal/hour or liter/minute? The surgeon who removed the tumors from the person dear to me, requested a CT to have a map in mm of the organs and did not order a PET because it was useless to provide the count/sec. to detect small tumors. Is your technique of measuring spatial resolution an improvement or a deteriorated resolution compared to my cluster technique described on page 107, Figure 13-12 in my book of the year 2000 (gl/ggGGwF)? I obtained that resolution for free with the same circuits used for accurately detecting the 511 keV photons. Why you did not give me 10% of your allotted time so I could tell you and your colleagues these things during the past 20 years?
- 2. Another abstract at page 39 of by the title “Biograph Vision Quadra, a Total Body PET scanner: why, what, and what for?” The Authors from Siemens Maurizio Conti and Bernard Bendriem state in the “Conclusions” (they did not write a statement for result): “The Biograph Vision Quadra, with its high sensitivity, good time resolution and workflow and software features, has the potential of changing clinical practice and open new avenues for research”. My comments/questions: “Would a 30 mm thick BGO crystal as you have used in your PET966 EXACT3D before the year 2000 reported on page 47 of my book (gl/ggGGwF) provide a higher sensitivity at a lower cost with respect to the 20 mm thick, expensive LSO used in your 2019 Biograph Vision Quadra? After I solved the inefficiency problem on Siemens’s PET devices during our 2002 meeting with the President of Siemens Nuclear Medicine, Micheal Reitermann, Siemens PET group Director, Vilim Simcic, with John Engdahl, head of advanced research, and Fred Macciocchi, Director of the electronic group at Siemens (that was recorded with the consent of the participants), and they were forced to retract publicly on Siemens website their incorrect statements that it was not possible to increase the efficiency of their PET devices by improving the electronics. After solving your inefficiency problem in 2002, Siemens could have assembled side-by-side four Siemens 23.4 cm FOV PET966 EXACT3D using BGO crystal detectors. Then by implementing my 3D-CBS device, Siemens could have provided the advantage of a more efficient $200 per screening test cost using the BGO crystals instead of the LSO crystals used in the Vision Quadra. Why you came up 19 years later with a device less efficient and more costly than the 3D-CBS. The paradigm change in biomedical imaging was set with my book in 2000 that can change any time the clinical practice and open new avenues for research”
I agree that Scientific Conference should not only accept abstract and presentations that are at the top of providing advancement in science and maximum reduction in cancer deaths and costs, however, suppressing my abstract that no one can refute which provides astounding benefits to humanity it is outrageous in a civilized society for the damage that it is doing not to me but much more to everyone and to future generations.