To all people holding a position of responsibility to serve the public and to responsible citizens: A revolutionary paradigm change in biomedical imaging providing a solution to the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer

Complete document in pdf in English at: https://bit.ly/3yal50c

December 8^th, 2021

Subject: To all people holding a position of responsibility to serve the public and to responsible citizens: A revolutionary paradigm change in biomedical imaging providing a solution to the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer

 

This message is addressed to all those holding a position of responsibility to serve the public and to responsible citizens. This document provides the logical solution to significantly reduce cancer deaths and costs through cost-effective multiple 3D-CBS tests for early cancer detection.

 

A picture is worth a 1,000 words. The figure shows how a revolutionary paradigm change in biomedical imaging with the 3D-CBS can affect a significant reduction in cancer deaths and suffering.

 

The first 3D-CBS test is useful to create a baseline of data related to a patient and will be used to compare and subtract data digitally after subsequent tests to show and highlight any new growth/activity to the doctor.

 

Unless large anomalies are seen, the first screening test may reveal several areas having clusters of cells with higher biological activity than other areas.

 

This might be confusing and could lead to a false positive. However, after a subsequent screening test performed 3 to 6 months later, the original data from the baseline test can be digitally subtracted from the newly acquired data by the computer program TB-CAD (Total Body Computer-Aided Diagnosis) to show doctors only the differences. This would eliminate the confusion of any hot spots, as only an increase or decrease of activity of a tumor will be highlighted, thus avoiding a false positive diagnosis.

 

Why don’t we have this capability today? And

What would it take to have this feature, essential to saving lives and reducing healthcare costs?

 

The answer to the first question is because influential scientists have driven research toward making beautiful pictures with high spatial resolution from a SINGLE PET (Positron Emission Tomography) EXAMINATION and then limiting the radiologists, oncologists, and doctors to manually correlate those single pictures with other information they have from CT scans, MRIs, Ultrasounds, blood tests, etc. At the same time, they have censured and suppressed for more than 20 years my 3D-Flow, 3D-CBS; and most recently my TB-CAD inventions that could provide these benefits summarized in the picture.

 

The answer to the second question is that PET should accurately capture all possible signals from the tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured rather than providing expensive beautiful pictures.

 

This is what my 3D-CBS technology of the year 2000 provides based on the 3D-Flow invention recognized valuable and endorsed by top experts in the field.

 

See 22 original letters endorsing and appreciating my research work and inventions from a Nobel Laureate, Director, Division Leaders, Group Leaders of the most prestigious research laboratories in the world (CERN, FERMILAB, Superconducting Super Collider, Brookhaven National Laboratory, etc.), from the inventor of the pocket calculator, from the inventor of the first 400 MHz Microprocessors and from other experts in the field at https://crosettofoundation.org/testimonials/  (At the end of the except from the letters there is the link to the full original letter, in some cases, like the inventor of the pocket calculator, the letter of endorsement is handwritten and signed).

 

See the summary of my main inventions at https://crosettofoundation.org/inventions/

 

Why has the reaction from many people to this high-stake solution to the most deadly and costly calamity been to eliminate my message, even sometimes with fury and anger, clicking the delete button 12 times in less than one minute, without reading it, and/or without expressing what they disagree with or asking questions? Several of these people hold positions of responsibility to serve the interest of the public.

 

The questions I am asking are simple that anyone caring for his life can answer using the logic and common sense:

 

1. Do you believe it is better to have a medical imaging device covering only one or a few organs of the body, requiring hazardous radiation, a high examination cost, which can detect tumors only when the number of cancerous cells have reached millions or billions, or a device covering all organs of the body, requiring only 1% of the radiation, having a low examination cost, and capable of detecting a cluster of only 100 cancerous cells?

 

2. Do you think a doctor would be facilitated in his/her diagnosis from a single exam showing beautiful pictures or from the trend of several exams providing information on whether a small tumor, at his early curable stage is active, is growing, and how fast it is growing?

 

3. Do you think a good idea to remove the inequalities in screening tests between countries that practice only 6% screening compared to those that practice 90%? Before you answer, you should know that the countries practicing high screening rates do not show a lower cancer mortality rate. Or do you think it is a good idea to first check the efficacy of the proposed screening on a sample population and only if it shows a lowering in the mortality rate should it be extended to the entire population? The proof that current cancer screenings are not effective is provided by data that show every year cancer costs in Italy 20 billion euros (https://bit.ly/3qVv9pS), without obtaining the results of a reduction in mortality which is instead constant or slightly increasing (https://bit.ly/3fUUDjW) on a constant population for several years (https://bit.ly/3pv3qwe)

 

4. Do you believe that inequality in screening can be removed with my 3D-CBS device capable of detecting 100 cancerous cells at $200/test with 1% radiation, making use of economical, easily available components, presenting no limits to the number of 3D-CBS units that can be built? Or do you believe it can be achieved with less efficient and considerably more expensive copies of my 3D-CBS invention (the EXPLORER, Siemens Biograph Vision Quadra, etc.) at $10,000/exam, affordable only to the wealthy, making use of rare earth elements which limit the number of units that can be built to serve the people?

 

5. Since 2004 Japan (as well as other countries) is using for cancer screening of asymptomatic people less efficient PET devices, covering only one or a few organs, requiring high radiation, capable to detect tumors only when the number of cancerous cells have reached millions or billions. This was approved by the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine as state in the scientific article (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15981668/) “In Japan, more than half of the PET facilities offer PET examinations for cancer screening of asymptomatic persons. Guidelines concerning the use of PET for cancer screening were issued by the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine in 2004” Do you believe that this is a valid argument for those who rejected my claim to use for cancer screening the 3D-CBS device covering all organs of the body, requiring only 1% of the radiation, having a low examination cost, and capable of detecting a cluster of only 100 cancerous cells?

 

6. Year after year my calculations, logical reasoning and claims turn out to be correct by measurements performed by third parties. Given the high-stake solutions of my inventions to the most deadly and costly calamity that could have saved millions of lives and billions of dollars for 21 years, do you believe that journalists working in the public interest have a duty and responsibility to report to the public the facts proving the deliberate actions of people censuring/suppressing my documents, presentations and public debates with decision makers in the field?

 

Answering these six questions should be straight forward. Besides being all responsible for the illogic damaging all of us, using logic one can identify the steps needed to eliminate these inconsistencies and bring the benefits of my inventions to humanity as soon as possible.

 

1. The first logical step is to establish the connection between designing a device with the capabilities of detecting only 100 cancerous cells, at $200/test at 1% radiation with the technological breakthrough innovation in “accurately capturing all possible signals from the tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured”. The professionals with the highest responsibility in this area are the scientists who should support any disagreement with calculations, logical reasoning and scientific evidence, rather than using their authority/power to censure/suppress. The merit of my inventions have been recognized, appreciated and endorsed by a Nobel Laureate, Director, Division leaders, Group leaders and experts in the field first for the 3D-Flow invention and later in several public scientific reviews for the 3D-CBS (https://crosettofoundation.org/testimonials/). I continue to challenge experts in the three top organizations in the world in this field which are at CERN, at the Total Body PET Conference and the IEEE, the largest organization of professionals in the world with over 420,000 members dedicated to advancing technology for humanity, specifically at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conferences. I can sustain publicly a discussion with any member of these organizations that I known for decades and none has refuted or invalidated my calculations, logical reasoning and my claims with their calculations. The correctness of my calculations and claims have been proven by measurements performed by third parties, while their mistakes have been listed by one of the most influential people in the field who gave a keynote speech at the 2021 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD, calling several times these mistakes “Lesson we have learned”.

 

2. The second logical step is to appeal to government representatives handling taxpayer money who should make accountable the above mentioned research centers and researchers to whom they have given billions of taxpayer money to defend their calculations, and claims in a public debate with myself. The appeal was made on June 21, 2021 (translated into 24 languages) with a Parliamentary Interrogation at the European Parliament (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2021-003244_EN.html) and now this start of the dialogue should be continued to make research center and researchers accountable to taxpayers who pay for their salaries and research.

 

3. The third logical step is for journalists working in the public interest which is the most important because they are essential for informing the public regarding facts and actions which deceive them and cause damage. A journalist is not required to understand technology or to take the side of one or the other, but his/her responsibility is to report facts, when facts are censured/suppressed, and more importantly when these facts reveal actions which damage taxpayers. Their responsibility can play an important role to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge by creating public debates which invite people having different strategies, as for example in this case inviting members of the European Committee to BEat CAncer (BECA) questioning how they support their strategy to use current screening tests to Beat Cancer, without providing a table with potential numbers of lives saved as well as the money saved after 3, 5, 10, 20, 30 years to be verified on a sample population each year (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/it/beca/home/highlights). My strategy is summarized in 2 pages and 3 tables for Italy, Europe and the World (https://bit.ly/2NvM57i) with references to thousand of pages providing numbers supported by calculations regarding people and costs saved spanning 30 years from the start of funding the plan.

 

On December 9, 2021, the European parliamentarians are voting to created a Committee that promises to defeat cancer “BEating CAncer” BECA https://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/it/beca/home/highlights but they have not identified the tool for early diagnosis that when tested on a sample population in a specific area demonstrates that it reduces mortality compared to the past when this tool or procedure was not used or with respect to another area where it is not used. Are they unaware to promise something that they do not know how to deliver it or they are aware and deliberately want to deceive 450 million Europeans taxpayers?

 

On November 30^th, 2021, I sent the email https://bit.ly/3r5045F updated to https://bit.ly/3dkLcbp to all members of the European Committee to BEat CAncer (BECA) and to 4,000 email addresses of Italian journalists, Italian Televisions, Press Agencies, online news, and international decision makers receiving the reaction reported below.

 

On November 30^th, 2021, the BECA updated calendar (https://bit.ly/3ybPivZ) was still indicated December 6^th, 2021, as the date to vote Trillet-Lenoir’s report and amendments. However, after sending my email, without receiving any message from BECA, I accidentally discovered that the date for the vote was postponed to December 9^th, 2021.

 

Therefore, I prepared this email that has been sent to 1,000 email addresses of scientists, politicians and decision makers and to 8,259 email addresses, which includes 2,000 Italian Journalists, 1414 journalists of online news, 371 journalists of weekly magazines, 114 journalists of free press, 903 Press Agencies, 316 journalists working for outlets outside Italy, 2,500 journalists working for the televisions and 641 journalists of monthly magazines.

 

Following I am reporting the reaction I received from sending the previous email. I do not have anything personal against the journalists that I am mentioning. I am not reporting their names to shame them, but on the contrary I respectfully ask they express the reason they are not interested to make the scientific truth that can solve the most deadly and costly calamity benefitting also them and their dear ones. Or to express their disagreements regarding the concept, strategy, paragraph or word I wrote that when addressed in depth would contribute to make the truth emerge.

 

I am not reporting names to shame or hurt anyone, but because I care and defend the interest of taxpayer and cancer patients and if I do not receive a direct message from the people holding position of responsibility to alleviate cancer deaths and suffering, I am forced to make this message available in a public place that they can read it such as Facebook, Google Drive or on Blog of the Website www.crosettofoundation.org

 

Communicating will give a chance to clarify that was not an intent from you to censure or suppress but you just overlooked an important subject because you receive hundreds of emails. Anything anyone can point out in my email and documents that is not logical or any error in calculations and claims can only be to the advantage to all of us and to humanity.

 

1.      The most noticeable, inexplicable lack of attention during the past decade in reporting important facts affecting millions of lives and billions of dollars is with journalists of the BBC, including the General Director Tim Davie who acknowledged reading my email dated September 22, 2021 (https://bit.ly/3zzJpYC) and November 18, 2021 (https://bit.ly/30vZnYl). The organizing committee of the Total Body PET Conference censured and suppressed my abstract that was approved by the Scientific Committee with no legitimate, ethical, logical, scientific reason. I provided the screenshots of the messages proving that was an abuse of power, contrary to all rules, Statute, Mission of the University of Edinburg and of the Conference. BBC and Tim Davie should not have taken the side of the Organizers of the Conference, but simply providing the irrefutable facts of the screenshots which prove censure and suppression of innovation with no plausible reason. Amanda Churchill, Executive Assistant to Director-General, BBC, Tim Davie, acknowledged reading 16 of my email since September 2019, many of which reporting censure/suppression of innovations and abuse of power from leaders that took actions in violation of the mission of the institution they represent, but I never received a response, even when I wrote a direct message from my personal email. Since 2012 I had email exchange with BBC journalists Jason Palmer when a third person was involved and participated to our email exchange. My longest in-depth explanation of illogicalities was 42 pages in length (https://bit.ly/3paKvIS).

 

2.      A journalist, staff at La Stampa in the office of the Province of Cuneo where I was born, after interviewing me, wrote an article about my work. Senior doctors of the Province of Cuneo and a former member of the Superior Council of Health in Italy who knew me for two decades reassured the journalist that I was telling the truth and my work had solid scientific ground. This journalist believed that the entire Nation should be informed about my lifesaving innovations rather than just the province of Cuneo. He therefore sent the article to Gabriele Beccaria who is in charge of science, but Beccaria never responded. Later I sent a copy of the article to Gabriele Beccaria and the Director of La Stampa Massimo Giannini. They both acknowledged receiving it but never responded.

 

3.      I was told to contact the journalists Sara Strippoli at La Repubblica, I followed the advice, was able to talk to her for a few seconds on the phone but she never set the time for an appointment and told me that she is writing only stories of innovation from young investigator and because I am not young cancer patients are out of luck. They have to wait for a young investigator to solve the cancer problem. After informing with several email journalists at La Repubblica and receiving the message “Your message was deleted without being read”, I wrote to its Director, Maurizio Molinari, who acknowledged received my email, but never replied.

 

4.      During the past decades, following the advice from people who would like the truth emerge to save lives and reducing healthcare costs advised me to contact Milena Gabanelli who was conducting the program Report. Myself and several collaborators contacted her but never received a response. I then contacted the new Director of Report, Sigfrido Ranucci, a journalist that I know also contacted him attempting to have an interview, but he was always busy. I had some phone conversation and email exchange with Cataldo Ciccolella working on the same program Report at the Italian National Television RAI, but he said that was placing my email in the archive for next Season. This went on for several years but I was never contacted the following season.

 

5.      In other area of the Italian National Television RAI the response is even worse. On November 30^th, 2021, I received 12 messages in less than one minute from Andrea Vianello, Director of the Italian National Television RaiNews24 stating “Your message was deleted without being read”. This is showing the fury and anger my message unleashed to Vianello. I immediately wrote back the following email: ”Good evening Dr. Andrea Vianello, this morning I sent you the message contained in: https://bit.ly/3r5045F thinking of doing you a service in providing evidence of illogicity which is to the detriment of the citizens to whom you render a service. However, in less than a minute I received twelve identical messages from you stating that you had deleted my email without reading it. You could tell me why my information is not useful for your audience and what aspect, content, paragraph or word you disagree with about what I have written. Thank you, Best regards, Dario Crosetto”  Vianello this time acknowledged receiving this email, however he did not respond.

 

6. Andrea Bettini, journalist at the Italian National Television RaiNews24 Director of the program Future24 dedicated to science and innovation broadcasting the main scientific events of the recent years his fury and anger was even harder. Bettini in response to my email https://bit.ly/3dkLcbp sent the message “Your message was deleted without being read” 12 times in less than one minute at 10:52 am and 10 times at 11:20 am on December 5th, 2021.

 

7. Francesconi Eugenio at the Italian National Television Rai in response to one email https://bit.ly/3dkLcbp sent 24 messages “Your message was deleted without being read” 12 at 4:18 pm and 12 at 5;45 pm on December 5^th, 2021.

 

8. The fury was also unleashed from other journalists at the Italian National Television RAI, in response to one email from me https://bit.ly/3dkLcbp they sent 12 messages “Your message was deleted without being read” from Valerio Ruggiero, Domenico Di Cesare, Daniele Lorenzetti, 11 messages “Your message was deleted without being read” from Cataldi Valerio, Nadia De Mita, 5 messages “Your message was deleted without being read” from francesco Gatti. Journalist from Il Sole 24 ore, Eliana di Coro to one mail from me https://bit.ly/3dkLcbp  she sent 10 messages “Your message was deleted without being read” and the journalist from La Stampa, Luigi Grassia to one mail from me https://bit.ly/3dkLcbp   sent 7 messages “Your message was deleted without being read” and the Archbishop from the dioceses of Lucca to one mail from me https://bit.ly/3dkLcbp  sent 2 messages “Your message was deleted without being read”.

 

On behalf of cancer patients, I respectfully ask to express your disagreement to my innovations, concept, paragraph, words in my document so we could address it, overcome the differences by deciding an experiment whose results would be the judge showing who is right and who is wrong.

 

There are billions of dollars for cancer research every year. It is outrageous for the people who are suffering and dying needlessly because our different calculations and claims are not addressed in a timely manner.

 

Please criticize my 2 page strategy and 3 page table at https://bit.ly/2NvM57i and provide me yours or the strategy of the person or Institution that you believe has a better strategy supported by calculations, logic and scientific arguments that can be compared.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dario Crosetto

900 Hideaway Pl

DeSoto, TX 75115 – USA

Email: crosettodario@gmail.com