This Document in pdf at: https://bit.ly/3E7SKJJ

The need for scientists to take responsibility in determining what is more cost-effective in capturing signals in PET for early cancer detection to save lives

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

To: Gonzalez Martinez and Francis Loignon-Houle Conveners M-03, New Radiation Detector Technologies for Medical Imaging, 20 Oct. 2021 IEEE-MIC Conference

Dear Martinez and Francis,

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

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

I am 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.

At your Session on 20 Oct. 2021 I asked the following question in the chat line:

“Question to the speaker and to everyone: I have commented to Iwao Kanno talk that I agree “The essence of PET is quantitative measurement of in vivo biology” and ask the question if you agree that we must “accurately capture all possible valid signals from the tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured” to achieve this and if you support what presented at https://bit.ly/2X4XVuc “.

Instead of reading my question to the participants as you did with the other questions, taking responsibility and expressing your consideration, you dismissed my question.

One would expect a logical answer from a scientist such as:

“Here is the reference to two or even just one project that can be compared in efficiency, costs and the number of lives saved per year per machine with your 3D-CBS”

Then he/she should provide the reference of the alternative project that should be compared with the 3D-CBS.

Or you can request to talk to an engineer of a company (or even more than one), who made the 59 quotes for building the components, electronic boards, powers supplies, chassis, etc. of my 3D-CBS and 3D-Flow system described in 271-page document (goo.gl/w3XlZ1) because you would like to make sure that he can deliver what he promised in the quote.

Isn’t the job of the Convener to read the questions from the participants to the speaker? Because my question was addressed to everyone, why you did not take responsibility to answer yourself and censured instead to the speakers and to the participants with no scientific reason?

Dismissing my question and not having a reference that you 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 invention 3D-Flow, 3D-CBS and TB-CAD could save millions of lives and trillions of dollars will be confirmed experimentally to be true.

However, all the people who have suppress transparency in science, censured my questions, talks papers and funding  causing delay of benefits to humanity and causing needless suffering, deaths and wasted trillions of dollars will they be found responsible? If nothing else: “Whoever deliberately delays and conceals reports will forever be nailed to history’s pillar of shame” as it was disseminated by the Associated Press (https://apnews.com/0bf5cd116c250483a8232533d41edc69) and published by several newspapers (The Times, The Australian, KFF, PBS, CNBC, The Guardian, etc.).

Next year the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD will be held in Milan, Italy. Would the suppression of transparency and censure with no scientific reason continue?

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