This Document in pdf at: https://bit.ly/3q0TVWc
Facebook in English: https://bit.ly/30s4SHo
Stefan Ritt, Former President of IEEE-NPSS, Chair of Session N-24 at the 2021 IEEE-NSS Conference censure innovations that are related to the talk
Crosetto provides the reference to the 3D-Flow invention that solves the problem of the speaker more efficiently at lower cost and Stefan Ritt censure it.
450 million Europeans want to know from scientists what works best
in reducing suffering, deaths and costs of cancer
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT – Parliamentary questions
21 June 2021 (Translated in 24 languages) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2021-003244_EN.html
Stefan Ritt Convener at N-24, DAQ Trigger Non-High Energy Physics, 21 Oct. 2021 IEEE-NSS Conference
Dear Stefan,
Please read the report about the suffering and pain of the person dear to me (https://bit.ly/3Aks5bd; Web Site: https://bit.ly/3AwJj5z) like millions of other people who suffer because they discovered tumors at stage 3 or 4 and in the case of the person dear to me it was necessary to remove in two surgeries: ovaries, uterus, Tubes of Fallopian, appendix, spleen, two tumors at the liver and scrap the colon and the pancreas, staying at the hospital 2 months after the second surgery with HIPEC procedure, over four months of tube-feeding and over 5 months of the care to the wound every other day.
The reason why the tumor was discovered at stage 4 with over 2.5 billion cancerous cells is because my 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions (goo.gl/ggGGwF) that for more than two decades can detect tumors with only 100 cancerous cells, at $200/exam, requiring 1% radiation dose compared to current PET, has been censured and suppressed even from presenting, discussing and publishing by you and your colleagues for more than 20 years.
We are not on this planet to show our power in suppressing others but to use logical reasoning to understand the laws of nature for improving the quality of life to everyone and to use compassion to alleviate suffering.
I am asking the organizers of the 2021 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference for transparency and scientists to take responsibility for providing logical, truthful and scientific answers.
I do not have anything personal against you or other IEEE leaders like you, but before the following facts I cannot be silent and not taking the side of millions of people who could have been saved and I must tell the truth.
I have nothing personal against you or the other IEEE leaders like you, in fact I have no problem to meet any of you in public and discuss scientific issues, trying to find common grounds, analyze together facts, calculations, logical reasoning and if we still come to some disagreements, we should be eager to find (for the benefit of humanity and not for satisfying our super ego) an experimental test whose result would be the judge in telling who is right or wrong.
What is the needed technological characteristics in order to have a 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) device capable of detecting 100 cancerous cells at $200/exam, requiring 1% radiation dose to save many lives through a cost-effective early cancer detection?
The translation in technical terms is conceiving breakthrough inventions that can “accurately detect and measure the characteristics of all possible valid signals from the tumor markers (or from rare sought particles in billion-dollars physics experiments) at the lowest cost per valid signal captured”.
This is what I have provided with the 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions for the past 20 years and even today there is no alternative idea, project, device that can show higher efficiency and lower cost compared to the above approach.
How would you explain the following facts of your behavior to young researchers to gain their trust that you as a leader of IEEE are knowledgeable, ethical and fair toward science and toward them, so they can esteem and respect you as a leader?
Fact No. 1:
In 2016 I had a meeting lasting almost two hours (which I have a record) in Strasbourg at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference with you as newly elected President of IEEE-NPSS, together with John Verboncoeur who was still the IEEE-NPSS President in charge.
Twenty-four years after my technology-independent 3D-Flow invention you and John were not aware that was a breakthrough that was appreciated and received the endorsement from several top scientists (https://crosettofoundation.org/testimonials/), including a Nobel laureate, Director of Fermilab and of the Superconducting Super Collider, Division Leaders, Group Leaders and top experts in the field from the major world’s research laboratories (CERN, FERMIlab, BNL, etc.). The merits of my invention passed a major public scientific review held at FERMIlab (goo.gl/zP76Tc). I provided the explanation for scientists in one page (goo.gl/NQ8Cck) and the one I provided to high school students that you can see in a movie (Se minute 8 at https://bit.ly/31CLuG7). You and John realized the advantages of my invention that made obsolete to develop expensive, high-power consumption, fast ECL and GaAs logic and also realized that it can migrate to future most cost-effective technology offering any time the most competitive product or application.
During our meeting I showed you the 271 pages (goo.gl/w3XlZ1) of the most recent implementation of the 3D-Flow system for Trigger applications in High Energy Physics and for applications in medical imaging such as the 3D-CBS device. I then showed you 155 pages with 59 quotes from reputable industries proving the feasibility of all components of the system at a competitive cost.
After you and John realized the advantages my inventions were offering to science, it was natural for me to think that you wanted to inform the scientific community because there might be many other people like you that after 24 years did not know of its existence.
I was instead surprised to see that your attitude during the following years was completely opposite in trying to censure and suppress it with several excuses such as that it was already presented in the previous years, without letting me present the updates with the advancements in technology that every 15 years my 3D-Flow architecture gains ten times in speed, consumes 1/10 and costs 1/200, and is more efficient and lower cost than any current L-1 Trigger design/implementation. Literature shows projects such as the associative memory from Ristori that has been presented at conferences for more that four decades, or the submillimeter PET for mammography by Craig Levin that was presented for many years, spending millions of taxpayer’s dollars that never turned in a commercial product because its concept was flawed.
Fact No. 2:
Referring to the ethics and code of conduct of a scientist who has the mission to promote innovations for the benefit of humanity, after you realized the advantages of my inventions and knowing that you, as many other did not know of its existence after 24 years, as a leader of IEEE it would be your interest to implement its mission “Drive global innovation through broad collaboration and the sharing of knowledge” and approve my presentations and articles, so in 2016 I wrote you and John Verboncoeur the document (https://bit.ly/3pVeD9X).
However, also this time you and the other leaders of IEEE did not take responsibility to answer and address scientific issues, in countering my calculations and claims with your calculations and claims.
Fact No. 3:
In 2018 as you were holding the position of President of IEEE-NPSS, I brought to your attention the inconsistencies detailed in the letter (https://bit.ly/3IRXjLx) related to practices and actions from leaders in the IEEE-NPSS organization that were not complying with the declared mission of IEEE. These people were subordinate to your position. A few days later I brought to the attention to the entire IEEE-NPSS Board of Directors that you Chaired (https://bit.ly/3IN8Agl).
Also this time you and the other leaders of IEEE did not take responsibility to answer and address scientific issues, in countering my calculations and claims with your calculations and claims.
Fact No. 4:
In 2020 as you were Deputy Chair of the IEEE-NSS conference I wrote you the following “Dear Deputy IEEE-NSS Chair, Stefan Ritt, please could you explain not just to me but to the new IEEE President Elect Susan Kay Kathy Land, the current President Toshio Fukuda, past Presidents José Moura, the President of the IEEE-NPSS Ron Schrimpf and the General Chair of the 2021 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Ikuo Kanno, who need to guarantee the code of conduct of scientists in following scientific procedures and transparency and defend IEEE’s mission of Advancing Technology for Humanity. Pease explain as well to the scientific community and the public the following discrepancies:
- After telling me in a personal email on July 28th, 2020 to be patient, following my one time enquiry if I missed the notification of the acceptance/rejection of my paper submission that the previous years were notified at the beginning of July, the next day you and Sara Pozzi wrote me the official email rejecting my #1689 (https://bit.ly/3dFJ5wF).
- I asked for a scientific reason, expecting that you, by knowing my work, would respond; instead, I received the reasons for the rejection from Isabel Trigger from Triumf (Canada) who copied her message to you. Why didn’t the reason for the rejection come from you? I was surprised you agreed with Isabel Trigger’s rejection claims.
- In 2016, after corresponding with the IEEE-NPSS President, John Verboncoeur and writing a report (https://bit.ly/3eyYe4z) that was sent to all 2016 Chairmen of the conference, and after meeting all of them at the conference in Strasbourg, on November 5, 2016, I had a meeting lasting almost two hours with IEEE-NPSS President, John Verboncoeur, and with you, the newly elected President Stefan Ritt, in charge from January 2017. During our meeting, you and John could not support anonymous reviewers’ rejection claims of my abstracts/summaries and could not point out flaws in my inventions. You also stated that you had never heard of anything like my invention before, found it very interesting and could not provide references to any alternative system that could more efficiently and cost-effectively solve the Level-1 Trigger requirements of different experiments.
- I was looking forward to having a virtual meeting with Isabel Trigger at the 2020 conference; however, I discovered she was not registered at the conference, and I could not find her name in the attendee lounge. Which role does Isabel Trigger have with the IEEE organization of the conference by being in charge of providing the reasons for rejecting a paper?
My full letter available in pdf at: https://bit.ly/3lFvsCh and on a Facebook Post on November 22nd, 2020 in English: https://bit.ly/2UQOHwX continues analyzing in detail Isabel Trigger’s rejection claims of my paper #1689 (https://bit.ly/3dFJ5wF)…
However, also this time you and the other leaders of IEEE did not take responsibility to answer and address scientific issues, in countering my calculations and claims with your calculations and claims.
Fact No. 5:
In 2021 as the convener at N-24, DAQ Trigger Non-High Energy Physics, 21 Oct. 2021 IEEE-NSS Conference, you censure/suppressed my question aiming to inform the scientific community that there is my invention since 29 years that can provide higher performance at a lower cost in several applications. It is not true what stated by the convener Martin Purshke the previous day (https://bit.ly/3G86x4V) that the reason why he did not read my question is because everyone knows the advantages of the 3D-Flow architecture.
As you and John Verboncoeur did not know the existence of my 3D-Flow architecture in 2016, 24-year after it was officially and formally recognized a breakthrough invention, the entire group of Tiamyu Ma at Tsinghua University in Beijing working in CERN experiments, did not know in 2018, 26 years after its invention of its existence. And Prof. Guanghua Gong who led the discussion after my seminar in Beijing wrote the following in an email: “…Crosetto’s 3D processing structure is an innovation in electronics, the similar ideas we can only seen 10 years later and with much complex implementation…” (https://bit.ly/3lZpY7H) revealing that also at CERN researchers were wasting money on less efficient and more costly approaches because they did not know the existence of my 3D-Flow invention. This is the result of IEEE censuring/suppressing my presentations and papers for two decades.
At your Session N-24, on 21 Oct. 2021 I asked the following question in the chat window:
“Please can you read to DAQ/Trigger community these two questions that were dismissed yesterday by Martin Purschke: “Are you aware of the fully programmable, technology-independent, 3D-Flow architecture/system for L-1 Trigger, officially and formally recognized a breakthrough invention in 1993, which every 15 years gains ten times in speed, consumes 1/10 and costs 1/200, which is more efficient and lower cost than any current L-1 Trigger design/implementation, but has been suppressed for 28 years as reported in https://bit.ly/2X4XVuc?” What would you suggest changing to be fair to Science, taxpayers and future researchers?”
You did not read my question and wrote in the chat window: Dario Crosetto: Unfortunately we can only accept questions directly related to the talk. Thank you for your understanding.”
This was not a pertinent excuse because the 3D-Flow architecture besides breaking the speed barrier in real-time application it provides a cost-effective solution to route data from multiple channels to a single channel in a programmable way and I then wrote in the chat window: “Stefan, My 3D-Flow is related to DAQ Funneling and front end architecture and there are examples that questions were accepted that were related to all talks related to DAQ/Trigger”
However, also this time no trace has been left at the conference of my inventions to advance science.
Fact No. 6:
The keynote speaker David Townsend at the Workshop: Challenges moving from the lab bench to clinical practice for nuclear medicine held on October 23rd, 2021 at the 2021 IEEE-MIC Conference showed several slides by the title “Lessons we learned” and repeated several times the same statement in his talk, but after more than 40 years he still did not learn the lesson that to build a PET with very high sensitivity at a low cost it is necessary to build PET detectors using economical crystals surrounding the entire body, covering all organs. Instead from 1979 to 1993 Townsend worked at the University Hospital in Geneva, Switzerland, developing the PRT-1, which is a PET with a partial ring of rotating detectors in two arcs. Despite scientific evidence proving once more to Townsend that the partial ring PET concept is flawed, in his Paper Review article with Terry Jones in 2017 he still proposes this concept as a future technical innovation, as well as alternative to the EXPLORER. Townsend in his article stated ““…Attaining a 10-ps timing would open up an entirely new concept of static partial ring scanner …with 10-ps timing, reconstruction would not be required and thus a partial ring design could be static, potentially a more cost-effective way to achieve a total-body PET scanner than the full-ring EXPLORER” which is flawed and it seems he did not learned the lesson in more than 40 years from the measurements he performed.
My legitimate, pertinent, scientific question to David Townsend at the 2021 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference that could start a discussion that could correct the wrong direction of research in designing and building PET as Townsend and other guided the scientific community was again censured/suppressed by the convener Conference Taiga Yamaya who did not read my question and there is no trace in any Conference record because the text on the chat window is delete at the end of each Session.
My question was: “David Townsend in your review paper with Terry Jones “History and future technical innovation in positron emission tomography” at p. 14 (or cited at p. 21 of http://bit.ly/2QdgdTx) you stated “…Attaining a 10-ps timing would open up an entirely new concept of static partial ring scanner…” which is not logical, because fewer detectors reduce sensitivity, it is opposite the request by Iwao Kanno, it is incorrect, misleading and driving researchers in the wrong direction. Would you correct it?”
No one ever addressed this question with scientific arguments.”
Isn’t the job of the Convener to read the questions from the participants to the speaker?
Dismissing my question and not having a reference that you and the other IEEE leaders could provide to compare in cost and performance with the 3D-CBS and by not having objections to my design proven feasible with simulation of the entire system and proven functional in hardware on two modular electronic boards that could be replicated to a PET detector of any dimension, is it because of a coverup reason?
As my calculations and claims of the 3D-CBS in my book of the year 2000 could detect clusters with only 100 cancerous cells turned out to be true 20 years later, also my other claim that the combination of my three inventions 3D-Flow, 3D-CBS and TB-CAD (Total Body Computer-Aided Diagnosis) that is creating a revolutionary paradigm change in biomedical imaging from analyzing data from a single PET examination to analyzing the trend from several 3D-CBS examination acquired at 3, 6, 12 months interval at very low radiation dose and cost for each examination test, could save millions of lives and trillions of dollars will be confirmed experimentally to be true.
I am prevented to talk about the TB-CAD, however, it is registered in the US Patent and Trademarks under my name and also in this case decades from now, future generations will realized the damage they have received from leaders who prevented me to bring the benefits of my inventions to the bed of the patient.
Dear Stefan, instead of censuring/suppressing my questions/inventions/papers/projects, express your ideas or provide the reference to the ideas of articles of people that you know who can “accurately detect and measure the characteristics of all possible valid signals from the tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured and let’s compared them with my 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS innovations.
The best device/technology capable of detecting less than 100 cancerous cells at lower than $200/exam, requiring less than 1% radiation dose to save many lives through a cost-effective early cancer detection is what we need to discuss, not the bureaucratic rule on how to suppress the dialogue, ideas and innovations.
Taxpayers, politicians, cancer organizations, young researchers and cancer patients expect you take responsibility to answer these inconsistencies or apologize to them for refusing to address them using logical-scientific approaches.
Below I provide the screenshot of the online chat window at the conference.
Kind Regards,
Dario Crosetto
President of the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths
900 Hideaway Pl
DeSoto, TX 75115
Email: crosettodario@gmail.com
The following are the links to the other facts occurred at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference showing that you and the other leaders of IEEE did not take responsibility to answer and address scientific issues, in countering my calculations and claims with your calculations and claims but censured/suppressed my presentations and papers.
Craig Levin and Taimyu Ma, full Document in pdf in English at: https://bit.ly/3lZpY7H
On the Web Site in English: https://bit.ly/3IJH5nM
On Facebook in English: https://bit.ly/3s0puBU
Martin Purshke full Document in pdf at: https://bit.ly/3G86x4V
On the website: https://bit.ly/2Z7ftGO
Facebook in English: https://bit.ly/3Bg72GJ
Gonzales & Loignon full Document in pdf at: https://bit.ly/3E7SKJJ
Blog: https://bit.ly/3vxxNow
Facebook in English: https://bit.ly/3b9saDX
Taiga & Jeao full document in pdf at: https://bit.ly/3aTU46D
Blog at: https://bit.ly/3pkx1ug
Facebook at: https://bit.ly/3aUXshG
James & Tadayuki full Document in pdf at: https://bit.ly/3aR8qEK
Blog: https://bit.ly/2XrXDha
Facebook in English: https://bit.ly/3b9saDX
Woody & Takahashi full This document in pdf at: https://bit.ly/3AXRHKw
Blog at: https://bit.ly/3vqTiY4
Facebook at: https://bit.ly/3G74crc
Ikuo Kanno, full document in pdf at: https://bit.ly/3Ge6Ifl
Blog at: https://bit.ly/2Z4s0e2
Facebook at: https://bit.ly/3jCDFIH
Dario Crosetto wrote: «Please can you read to DAQ/Trigger community these two questions that were dismissed yesterday by Martin Purschke: “Are you aware of the fully programmable, technology-independent, 3D-Flow architecture/system for L-1 Trigger, officially and formally recognized a breakthrough invention in 1993, which every 15 years gains ten times in speed, consumes 1/10 and costs 1/200, which is more efficient and lower cost than any current L-1 Trigger design/implementation, but has been suppressed for 28 years as reported in https://bit.ly/2X4XVuc?” What would you suggest changing to be fair to Science, taxpayers and future researchers?»
Stefan Ritt wrote: «Dario Crosetto: Unfortunately we can only accept questions directly related to the talk. Thank you for your understanding.»
Dario Crosetto wrote: «Stefan, My 3D-Flow is related to DAQ Funneling and front end architecture and there are examples that questions were accepted that were related to all talks related to DAQ/Trigger»