DALLAS, Feb. 15, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- In PDF https://bit.ly/4qCHVYg — The Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths, acting on its mission to provide cost-effective life-saving solutions to the public, calls for an immediate comparative scientific review to resolve the ongoing exclusion of unrefuted cancer-detection breakthroughs. At the North Texas Cancer Advocacy Breakfast on February 11, 2026, Italian-American scientist Dario Crosetto presented a challenge to the leadership of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT). He is the inventor of a technology recognized as a breakthrough in 1993 by a major public, international scientific review at FERMILAB [1].
Based on this and other inventions, the U.S. Government in 1994 granted him a Green Card for ‘Exceptional Ability‘ in just 24 hours from submission. One entry, explicitly stated on page 8 of the official documentation, identifies the: ‘Digital programmable level-1 trigger with 3D-Flow assembly’ [2].
Furthermore in 1995, Crosetto received a $1 million grant [3] from the U.S. Department of Energy to conduct a feasibility study of the 3D-Flow invention, which was successfully completed and documented in a peer-reviewed publication [4].
Despite these proven technical, scientific, and cost-effective advantages in detecting particles and cancer at the near-cellular level—representing a quantum leap in early detection—this technology remains outside the scope of CPRIT’s public comparative scientific evaluation.
A Media Snippet accompanying this announcement is available by clicking on this link.
The Question of Funding Caps: During the Q&A session with CPRIT CEO Dr. Kristen Doyle, Crosetto raised a critical concern regarding the accessibility of funding for large-scale hardware prototypes.
Crosetto asked:
‘We all know that early cancer detection is the most cost-effective way to save lives. My question is this: if there is a project that costs more than $200,000 — because that appears to be the cap in the CPRIT funding opportunity I reviewed — and if a project requires $10 to $20 million, is there a possibility to submit that project to CPRIT’s scientific committee for evaluation, to determine whether it is scientifically sound based on solid scientific grounds? Is there an opportunity to submit projects exceeding $10 million?’
Dr. Doyle responded that all projects funded by CPRIT must undergo peer review. She explained that experts in the relevant fields, from across the country and internationally, review applications and recommend those considered strongest scientifically. She added that CPRIT funds approximately 10% of submitted applications and emphasized that, while $6 billion represents a significant investment, careful evaluation is necessary to ensure responsible use of public funds. She also noted that proposals are overseen by the governing board’s oversight committee, indicating two members present in the room: Will Montgomery and Dr. Craig Rosenfeld, who serve as citizen volunteers responsible for ensuring that funding decisions follow established rules and select the strongest proposals.
(See video of the exchange here) [5].
Crosetto briefly repeated the question asking whether a funding cap existed, after which the emcee indicated that further discussion would occur after the session. Dr. Doyle responded that she would be happy to speak afterward.
Follow-Up Discussion After the Event
At the conclusion of the event, Crosetto spoke with Mr. Will Montgomery, who indicated that CPRIT has funded projects in the range of $15 million and even above $20 million. Crosetto then asked where such funding opportunities were described, as the opportunities identified on the CPRIT website for projects appeared limited to approximately $250,000.
Public information regarding Mr. Montgomery’s role indicates that he oversees operational aspects of CPRIT’s funding programs, including Academic Research, Prevention, and Product Development, ensuring that review processes and grant administration are conducted in compliance with state guidelines.
In a previous press release dated 15 September 2025 [6], Crosetto had noted:
‘Most grants focus on recruitment and training ($2–5 million over five years). The High-Impact/High-Risk Research Awards (HIHR) program [7], despite its name, is limited to $250,000 over two years, far short of the approximately $20 million required for two prototypes.’
No clarification has yet been received explaining how projects in the $15–20 million range are funded within CPRIT’s structure. Mr. Montgomery advised Crosetto to contact Dr. G. Kenneth Smith, Chief Product Development Officer at CPRIT. Crosetto subsequently contacted Dr. Smith and sent a detailed letter [8] and is awaiting a response.
Public information regarding Dr. Smith’s role indicates that he oversees CPRIT’s Product Development Research Program, participates in the Program Integration Committee (PIC), and contributes to the evaluation and due-diligence processes for technologies considered for CPRIT funding.
A Call for Accountability and Comparison
It would be logical and fair to taxpayers if applicants requesting grants in the range of $15–20 million or more — whether for new drugs, vaccines, medical imaging devices, liquid biopsy technologies, immunotherapies, or prevention programs — provide quantitative estimates of expected reductions in cancer mortality and healthcare costs attain with their project (or combined with other existing techniques. Such proposals should include plans for measurable validation through controlled population similar to this ROADMAP Table [9].
For example, a program could be tested on a sample population of at least 10,000 individuals aged 55–74 in a geographic area where the cancer mortality rates have remained stable over time. After funding is awarded and the program implemented, measured changes in cancer mortality rates in a specific limited territory would provide objective evidence of success or failure.
In 2009, Crosetto submitted a proposal to CPRIT that did not receive any scientific refutation but was not funded. Now he requests that the technical-scientific demonstrations presented in his publications be publicly compared with funded projects and those currently under evaluation through a public, transparent and comparative scientific review.
Distribution of Technical Documentation
Crosetto provided the following materials during the event:
- A paper copy of a three-page letter [8].
- A 57-page technical-scientific demonstration [10] supported by references, simulations, hardware feasibility, and functional validation of the 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions, which are designed to detect tumors with fewer than 100 cells—far earlier than the 1,000,000 cells corresponding to 1 mm of body tissue, currently needed to detect cancer with an MRI or CT technology—in a 2-minute, $200 screening, with the potential to save billions of dollars in scientific and medical applications while advancing scientific progress and, more importantly, save millions of lives through a cost-effective early detection of minimal abnormal biological processes preceding disease, including cancer, at a highly curable stage.
- A four-page [13] summary of the 2025 Press Releases.
- A two-page summary [11] comparing the inventions with the state of the art, previously distributed in 1,200 copies to scientists attending the most important international conference in the field, IEEE NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Yokohama, Japan (1–7 November 2025).
Copies were provided to Mr. Will Montgomery, Dr. Jeff Fehlis, Mr. Steve Eagar, Ms. Kay Kamm, and Mr. Zac Covar, Chief of Staff to Representative Venton Jones.
When Crosetto offered the same documentation to CPRIT CEO Dr. Kristen Doyle, requesting it be forwarded to CPRIT scientists for evaluation, she expressed concern about avoiding any appearance of preferential treatment toward a specific project. The exchange reflected CPRIT’s emphasis on maintaining fairness and procedural neutrality in handling submissions.
While Crosetto expressed surprise that a CEO would not immediately ‘hunt’ for a potential breakthrough to pass to her scientific team, the exchange underscored a systemic barrier: the difficulty of introducing paradigm-shifting hardware into a grant system designed primarily for academic and clinical research.
Crosetto’s position is that organizations tasked with reducing cancer mortality should, by their very nature, be interested in reviewing any proposal that demonstrates a substantial impact. Furthermore, scientists acting with scientific integrity must acknowledge superior technology, much like a physician chooses the best possible treatment for a patient’s health. In a public comparative evaluation, the truth will emerge from the technical-scientific evidence and calculations presented by each party. Should disagreements persist, they can be resolved by funding two parallel experiments aimed at proving both claims; the empirical results from these experiments will ultimately determine which solution is correct.
Additional Follow-Up
Upon leaving the event, Crosetto briefly met Dr. Craig Rosenfeld, whom he had previously met at the ACS CAN Cancer Advocacy Breakfast 2024 event [12]. Due to time constraints, a discussion was not possible at that moment; however, Dr. Rosenfeld later received a copy of the same letter.
Public information indicates that members of the CPRIT Oversight Committee, including Dr. Rosenfeld, are appointed by state leadership and hold final voting authority on grant approvals while providing strategic oversight of funding decisions.
Conclusion
The central question raised by this exchange is not whether any single proposal should be funded, but whether a scientifically documented invention demonstrating substantial improvements in early cancer detection and cost efficiency should receive a transparent, public, and comparative scientific evaluation alongside currently funded approaches.
CPRIT’s mission is to reduce cancer mortality through responsible use of taxpayer resources and rigorous scientific review. A public comparative evaluation of the 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS demonstrations would allow independent experts to determine their scientific merit within the same framework applied to other funded projects. Such an approach would strengthen public confidence, ensure fairness to taxpayers, and align scientific evaluation with the shared objective of reducing premature cancer deaths.
The 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions have stood for decades without a formal scientific refutation. The question remains: In a mission to eradicate cancer backed by $6 billion in taxpayer funds, can the system adapt to evaluate a breakthrough that has demonstrated it changes the very nature of detecting ‘good events’ in physics experiments and detecting tumors in medical imaging? Scientific progress is not merely about following administrative rules that are effectively killing the rules in physics, biology and the laws of nature, but about ensuring that the most effective solutions are given a seat at the table.
Sincerely,
Dario Crosetto
DeSoto, Texas 75115 – USA
Email: crosettodario@gmail.com
The following three-page letter [8] was hand-delivered with three supporting attachments—a 57-page [10] technical-scientific document, a four-page [13] summary of 2025 Press Releases, and a two-page [11] brief distributed to 1,200 scientists at the 2025 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Yokohama, Japan. The 66-page package was provided to CPRIT leaders Kristen Doyle and Will Montgomery; ACS leaders Jeff Fehlis and Kay Kamm; State Representative Venton Jones; and FOX 4 anchor Steve Eagar.
North Texas Cancer Advocacy Breakfast Event
11 February 2026 — Dallas, Texas, Pegasus Park
Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT)
American Cancer Society (ACS)
Cancer Action Network (CAN) North Texas Cancer Advocacy
English PFD: https://bit.ly/4r6ZEI9
Italian PDF: https://bit.ly/4aOMEBi
Gather with leaders from cancer research, patient advocacy, healthcare, business and policy to explore how Texas can lead the way in transforming cancer care. Steve Eagar, Anchor FOX 4, to emcee the exclusive breakfast event that spotlights the critical role of corporate leadership in reducing disparities, improving access and accelerating innovation in cancer research and support.
Dear Texas State Senator, the Honorable Tan Parker,
Dear Texas State Representative, the Honorable Venton Jones
Dear Dr. Kristen Doyle, CEO, CPRIT
Dear Dr. Craig Rosenfeld, CPRIT Oversight Committee, Board Governance, Product Development (Chair),
Dear Dr. Will Montgomery, CPRIT Vice President of Program Operations
Dear Dr. Kenneth Smith, CPRIT Chief Product Development Officer
Dear Dr. Jeff Fehlis, ACS Executive Vice President, South Region,
Dear Dr. Cheasty Anderson, Ph.D., ACS Managing Director,
Dear Dr. Sloan Rivera, ACS Vice President, Dallas–Fort Worth,
Dear Dr. Ray Perryman, President and CEO of The Perryman Group
Dear Texas Secretary of State, the Honorable Jane Nelson,
Dear Ms. Kay Kamm, ACS Executive Director, Community Management (North Texas),
Dear Mr. Steve Eagar, FOX 4 Anchor,
I respectfully request that you submit to CPRIT and ACS scientists responsible for assigning funding to projects aimed at reducing cancer deaths the attached technical and scientific demonstrations supported by references, simulations, hardware feasibility and functionality of the 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions. The documentation demonstrates the potential to save billions of dollars in scientific and medical applications while advancing scientific progress and, more importantly, the potential to save millions of lives through cost-effective early detection of minimal abnormal biological processes that precede disease, including cancer, at a highly curable stage.
I further respectfully request the organization of a public scientific review, similar to the one conducted at Fermilab in 1993 focused on the 3D-Flow architecture. Transparent, public, and comparative evaluation represents the most appropriate method to ensure that taxpayer-funded research achieves the greatest possible benefit for patients and society.
On 14 December 1993, Fermilab organized a major public international scientific review that conducted a comparative evaluation of my 3D-Flow invention against the existing state of the art. The review committee formally recognized [1]that the 3D-Flow processor and system architecture could execute, on each dataset arriving every 25 nanoseconds the Level-2 Trigger algorithms consisting of thousands of programmable operations (add, subtract, multiply, etc.) at Level-1, whereas before my invention were limited to only a few dozen non-programmable operations. This capability enabled efficient filtering of useful physics events from radiation generated by the LHC collider from the approximately 1.2 billion events per second.
The same innovation demonstrated advantages in other applications, including medical imaging such as PET (Positron Emission Tomography), where it enables cost-effective filtering of radiation signals associated with tumor markers. This provides the potential advantage of detecting tumors at an early, highly curable stage while reducing radiation dose and maintaining affordable examination costs. The invention received recognition from leaders in the field, including a Nobel laureate, the Director of Fermilab, and division and group leaders at CERN (https://crosettofoundation.org/testimonials/).
In 1994, I was granted a U.S. Green Card for ‘Exceptional Ability’ [2] in just 24 hours from submission for the invention of several technologies (including five listed). One entry explicitly stated on page 8 of the official documentation: ‘Digital programmable level-1 trigger with 3D-Flow assembly’, and in 1995 I received a $1 million grant [3] from the U.S. Department of Energy to conduct a feasibility study of the 3D-Flow invention, which was successfully completed and documented in a peer-reviewed publication [4]. Despite demonstrating feasibility and substantial advantages, the Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) funding required to produce the Integrated Circuit in silicon was never funded, preventing its application in physics experiments, medical imaging devices such as the 3D-CBS system, and other fields.
The broader structural challenges surrounding research funding and evaluation have been widely discussed in scientific literature and journalism, including publications in October 2018 issue of Scientific American, Nature, Vox [14], and the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine [15], which have highlighted systemic limitations in funding allocation and reproducibility within scientific research.
The Democratic Path to Scientific Advancement: The most effective way to maximize benefits for both taxpayers and humanity is to utilize the tools provided by our democratic system. By connecting citizens to decision-makers through political representatives and forums like the ACS CAN Advocacy Breakfast, we establish a vital link between public funding and the maximization of results—specifically, the reduction of cancer deaths and healthcare costs.
True scientific progress is determined by transparent, public, and comparative evaluations. Therefore, I am calling for another public scientific review of the 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions. Because the advantages of my technology rely on the 3D-Flow innovation in detecting specific particles from radiation associated with tumor markers, the review committee must include experts in Medical Imaging as well as Particle Physics.
Over the past decades, I have known many decision makers and public officials who share the goal of reducing cancer mortality both in the Province of Cuneo in Italy, where I was born, and in Texas, where I have lived for the past 34 years. The time has come to unite efforts constructively: my contribution to science and technology, and the contribution of elected representatives in fulfilling their responsibility to represent taxpayers and guide public investment toward the most effective solutions.
In Italy, the Minister of Defense, the Honorable Guido Crosetto, acting as a person ‘rational and pragmatic’—as he defined himself on Radio Parlamento on 7 January 2026—organized a formal meeting at the Military Polyclinic Hospital headquarters in Rome on 4 July 2023.
During this session, I met with Gen. S.A. Antonio Conserva (Chief of Staff to the Minister of Defense) and Brig. Gen. Florigio Lista (Director of the Defense Biomedical Sciences Institute). While the recorded technical discussion lasted three hours and no formal scientific refutation of my calculations was made, we concluded that a comprehensive evaluation requires a multidisciplinary panel. An oncologist’s expertise, while vast, cannot substitute for the specific knowledge of PET detectors, electronics, and particle physics.
The 3D-CBS is able to detect tumors with fewer than 100 cancer cells before it grows to 1,000,000 cells (corresponding to 1 mm of body tissue), detectable by CT, mammogram, MRI, and ultrasound, in a 2-minute, $200, screening test using minimal radiation covering all organs of the body.
A Bond Between Texas and Italy: In 1997, I founded a cultural exchange between my hometown of Monasterolo di Savigliano and Texas. Notably, Texas Secretary of State Honorable Jane Nelson received Honorary Citizenship [16] from Monasterolo in 2018. Ms. Kay Kamm has also participated in these exchange visits.
To address the particle physics aspects appropriately, CERN should appoint an expert. In this context, democratic representation again plays an essential role. In Italy, I refer to the Honorable Giovanni Crosetto, Member of the European Parliament, who is from and represents the Province of Cuneo. In the United States, I refer to my Texas congressional representatives, who can ensure that the voice of taxpayers is heard by the U.S. Department of Energy, which contributes substantial public funding to CERN each year.
This is the proper way to close the loop between taxpayers, their representatives, and the scientific community: representatives ensure accountability in the allocation of public resources, while scientists conduct transparent, public, and comparative evaluations of innovations.
Given the key role of Texas Secretary of State, the Honorable Jane Nelson, in securing the appropriation of $6 billion in taxpayer funding to eradicate cancer ($3.63 Billion already spent), as stated in her video [17]), and her receiving of the award from the American Cancer Society, I believe she is well positioned to assist in requesting CPRIT scientists compare, in a public scientific meeting, the 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions with currently funded projects and those under evaluation.
The Province of Cuneo records more than 1,400 cancer deaths per year, and Texas records approximately 51,000 cancer deaths per year (Texas Health Services) [18]. Funding the NRE required to build the 3D-Flow integrated circuit—enabling the construction of two 3D-CBS units, one installed in Texas and one in the Province of Cuneo—would represent a meaningful and constructive step toward strengthening the long-standing bond between the two communities while advancing cancer prevention and early detection.
I provide these demonstrations with urgency, seeking a comparative public evaluation for the benefit of cancer patients, taxpayers, and humanity.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Dario Crosetto
DeSoto, Texas 75115 – USA
Email: crosettodario@gmail.com
Attachments:
- Scientific article: https://bit.ly/4rlupt8
- 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS Press Releases https://bit.ly/3M9CJgp
- Document distributed in 1,200 copies to the attendees at IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Yokohama, Japan 1-7 November 2025 (last 3-page) https://bit.ly/3ZBS2BA
End of the letter delivered at the ACS CAN Advocacy Breakfast on 11 February 2026 at Pegasus Park in Dallas, Texas
CALL TO ACTION
The 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) is an advanced PET (Positron Emission Tomography) system whose operating principle is based on the cost-effective filtering of tumor-marker signals from radiation. This is conceptually similar to the essential task performed at CERN, where systems must filter ‘good events’ from large amounts of radiation background.
By improving the detection of relevant signals while filtering noise, this approach offers the potential to detect tumors at a very early stage — with fewer than 100 cancer cells — using very low radiation doses and at low cost. These advantages depend on a breakthrough innovation in identifying and processing meaningful signals within large radiation data streams.
For this reason, it is necessary to organize a panel of multidisciplinary experts for an international public comparative scientific review, similar to the one held at Fermilab in 1993 on Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention.
Because signal detection, extraction, and analysis are central to PET imaging — and also fundamental to the research conducted at CERN, which is funded primarily by European, U.S., and international taxpayers — it is important that citizens ask their representatives to request that CERN appoint qualified experts to participate in such a review panel and ensure accountability for public funds invested in these research areas.
For these reasons, citizens in both the United States and Europe are encouraged to write to their elected representatives requesting a public comparative scientific evaluation.
Institutional Obligation and Final Call
Parliamentarians and public administrators entrusted with taxpayer resources are not required to resolve technical disputes. They are, however, obligated to demand transparency, public procedures, and measurable accountability. Closed-door evaluations, anonymous rejections, and the absence of public technical comparisons are incompatible with democratic governance when scientific, medical and economic stakes are significant.
The only legitimate path forward is the organization of public, comparative scientific reviews—in both particle physics and medical imaging—where competing technologies can be evaluated openly using quantified metrics, and where conclusions are fully documented and publicly disclosed.
This is not a conflict between individuals or institutions. It is a test of whether science serves truth, humanity, and the public interest.
History will judge this moment not by intentions, but by actions taken when the evidence was already available.
How You Can Help
1. Spread the Word
- Share this information with your personal and professional networks.
- Forward this to scientists, journalists, policymakers, and advocacy groups.
- Use social media to demand a public, evidence-based comparison of current institutional technologies versus Crosetto’s 3D-Fow and 3D-CBS.
2. Write to Your Representative: Demand transparency and public comparative review of these life- and money-saving innovations.
In the United States:
- Find and contact your U.S. Representative here: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative [19]
In Europe:
- Contact your national parliamentarians: Find their addresses at this link [20].
- Contact your EU representatives: View the full list of all 720 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) is available at this link [21].
3. A template letter addressed ‘To Whom It May Concern’ is available for download here [22].
Contact:
Dario Crosetto
Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths
DeSoto, Texas
crosetto@crosettofoundation.org
https://crosettofoundation.org/
Blog: https://crosettofoundation.org/blog/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064846172129
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dariocrosetto/
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dario-crosetto-4b69a1227/
X: https://x.com/crosettodario
APPENDIXES:
Callouts:
- “A breakthrough technology recognized by Fermilab seeks public comparative evaluation within CPRIT’s $6B cancer program”
- “24-Hour Recognition: Granted a U.S. Green Card for ‘Exceptional Ability’ just 24 hours after submission”
- “Can an unrefuted innovation be publicly compared with funded projects to determine the most effective path to reduce cancer deaths?”
- “Over 39 million lives lost prematurely to cancer—despite the 3D-CBS cost-effective early detection invention being available since 2000”
- “No favoritism on $6B to eradicate cancer: demand Nelson organize a public meeting between inventor Crosetto and CPRIT and let science truth emerge”
- “Where is the Evaluation? Why hasn’t this unrefuted breakthrough been comparatively evaluated against current $6B CPRIT projects?”
- “Public comparative scientific review strengthens trust between taxpayers, institutions, scientists through transparency and evidence-based decisions”
- “The Democratic Path: Connecting citizens to decision-makers through leaders like Tan Parker, Venton Jones and Giovanni Crosetto”
- “Scientific progress is about ensuring the most effective solutions have a seat at the table, regardless of administrative hurdles”
- “Integrity First: Scientists must act like doctors: choose the best technology for the patient, regardless of administrative rules”
Scientific/Technical demonstration of the advantages and benefits of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow breakthrough invention is available at: (https://bit.ly/4aX5R4b).
Summary of Press Releases with Reach and Media Outlets:
- Lang.: Language (EN = English, FR = French, DE = German, IT = Italian)
- MEPs: Members of the European Parliament
- Sci.: Scientists, IEEE, CERN, Leaders
- Pub.: General Public, Media, Journalists (Total Potential Reach: M = million, K = thousand)
- To: Recipients (Total Potential Reach / Known Unique Readers) + unknown readers
- Media: Number of media outlets publishing (see thousands of links at https://bit.ly/3HtisQv).
| Date | Lang. | Link | To | Media |
| 12/20/2025 | EN | https://bit.ly/4aX5R4b | Tech/Sci: Pub (150M/22k) | 1,000 |
| 11/07/2025 | EN | https://bit.ly/43idsFY | 300 | |
| 10/28/2025 | EN | https://bit.ly/4qKVar8 | Pub (148M/13.8K) | 940 |
| 09/15/2025 | EN | https://bit.ly/41TMUKF | Cancer: Pub (145M/11K) | 804 |
| 09/06/2025 | EN | https://bit.ly/3HYBePY | Pub (145M/23K) | 876 |
| 08/28/2025 | EN | https://bit.ly/4p0DneC | Tech/Sci: Pub (116M/22K), MEPs (720/420), Sci (40/27) | 597 |
| 07/15/2025 | EN | https://bit.ly/4m57FKZ | Pub (87M/10K), MEPs (720/41), Sci (40/14) | N/A |
| 07/04/2025 | FR | https://bit.ly/4lfjnTe | Pub (8.3M/2.5K) | 421 |
| 07/04/2005 | DE | https://bit.ly/3TTV0yb | Pub (11.3M/2.4K) | 487 |
| 07/04/2025 | IT | https://bit.ly/4loi7go | N/A | <5 |
| 07/03/2025 | EN | https://bit.ly/44cIbVQ | Pub (63.7M/2K), MEPs (720/448) | 441 |
| 06/30/2025 | EN | https://bit.ly/3TMnDNI | N/A | N/A |
| 06/30/2025 | IT | https://bit.ly/4nsvk9E | N/A | <5 |
| 06/23/2025 | EN | https://bit.ly/4era28b | MEPs (720/423) | N/A |
| 06/23/2025 | IT | https://bit.ly/3T7G1R8 | N/A | <5 |
| 04/14/2025 | EN | https://bit.ly/4oNUOyT | Technical Scientific Demonstration to Scientists |
References:
[1] FermiLab. Major public scientific review of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention ‘Digital Programmable Level-1 Trigger with 3D-Flow Assembly’ Held at FERMILAB on December 14, 1993. Committee Report at https://bit.ly/41i4ace. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5amx4ZlN2OTJqMmM/view?usp=sharing
[2] U.S. Government in 1994 granted Crosetto a Green Card for ‘Exceptional Ability‘ in just 24 hours from submission (https://bit.ly/4c6q9cn)
[3] U.S. DOE awarded Crosetto DB Phase II for $906,307 to conduct a feasibility study of his 3D-Flow invention (https://bit.ly/3Pszu1y)
[4] Crosetto D. ‘LHCb base-line level-0 trigger 3D-Flow implementation’ Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, vol. 436, (1999) pp.341-385. (https://bit.ly/45Mw6pM)
[5] Video: Crosetto asked a question to CPRIT CEO Dr. Kristen Doyle https://youtu.be/jZFJArXpixY.
[6] 09/15/2025. Press Release, English, title: ‘Request for Secretary of State of Texas, Jane Nelson, to Organize a Public Meeting Between Crosetto and CPRIT Scientists Who Have Allocated $3.65 Billion of $6 Billion to Cancer Research’. HTML: https://bit.ly/41TMUKF
[7] CPRIT funding opportunity limited to $250,000. The High-Impact/High-Risk Research Awards (HIHR) program
[8] Letter Crosetto delivered on 11 February 2026 at the ACS CAN Advocacy Breakfast https://bit.ly/4r6ZEI9
[9] Crosetto DB. A roadmap table and supporting data estimating the lives saved and projected revenues over 30 years from using the 3D-CBS device for early cancer detection. (https://bit.ly/47eqiIh), (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qYC3vzGm2CO37ZVsCUM05Op4Je_zz_GF/view?usp=sharing)
[10] 57-page scientific article (https://bit.ly/4rlupt8)
[11] Two-page brief Crosetto distributed to 1,200 scientists at the 2025 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Yokohama, Japan (https://bit.ly/3ZBS2BA)
[12] 2024 ACS CAN event report (https://bit.ly/4euiUZ2)
[13] 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS 2025 Press Releases https://bit.ly/3M9CJgp
[14] Article published by Vox ‘The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists’ (http://bit.ly/3iGbiaN)
[15] Article on peer-review published by JRSM. ‘Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals’ (http://bit.ly/2Yh4M0t).
[16] Texas Secretary of State Honorable Jane Nelson received Honorary Citizenship from Monasterolo di Savigliano in Italy in 2018 (https://bit.ly/470EaWp).
[17] Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson’s video stating her commitment to eradicate cancer with a $6 billion bill for Cancer Research (https://bit.ly/4e7QVPp), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7VJhz7easo).
[18] Cancer deaths in Texas https://www.dshs.texas.gov/texas-comprehensive-cancer-control-program/cancer-texas.
[19] United States Representatives contacts: Write to your representative in U.S.: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
[20] European States Parliamentarians contacts: Write to your national parliamentarians of all European states: https://secure.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/parliaments/list_parliaments
[21] European Parliamentarians contacts: Write to the 720 members of the European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/full-list/all
[22] Template letter to assist you in drafting a message to your representative. (https://bit.ly/4j4J74s), (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zSgLZin69ZaSFcuzc_HjITkbQ8iTe1Pa/view?usp=sharing)
