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 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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Dario Crosetto
DeSoto, Texas 75115 – USA
Email: [email protected]
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: [email protected]
Attachments:
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.
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:
APPENDIXES:
Callouts:
Summary of Press Releases with Reach and Media Outlets:
References:
[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)
[5] Video: Crosetto asked a question to CPRIT CEO Dr. Kristen Doyle https://youtu.be/jZFJArXpixY.
[8] Letter Crosetto delivered on 11 February 2026 at the ACS CAN Advocacy Breakfast https://bit.ly/4r6ZEI9
[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).
Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs
To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.
