tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1225970575185697482024-02-08T06:30:24.171-08:00The Macklin Medical MissionThis site is dedicated to the new stem cell research efforts called "translational white cell therapy" to use modified human white cells to successfully fight cancer cells and tumors in the body in a non-invasive format.Eric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-25422695352145934792014-08-21T18:46:00.000-07:002014-08-23T11:46:25.559-07:00Cancer Cure Coming to Toronto 2015<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18px; text-align: center;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><b>The Cure to Cancer</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18px; text-align: center;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><b>The Macklin Medical Mission</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Further to our discussions in earlier Blogs about the cure to cancer which has been available since the spring of 2012 and is now effective against leukaemia and melanoma, we would now like to discuss the success of ever larger clinical trails in the United States. The two major centres for research are of course the M.D. Anderson Center in Houston and of course the cancer research centre at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. For this discussion our focus will be on the very successful research being undertaken at the Abramson Family Cancer Research Center in Pittsburgh which has now expanded to the Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia (CHOP). In this regard their primary focus is children's leukaemia up to the age of 18 stages one through four - the cure.</span><br />
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><br /></span>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">So if you have a child with leukaemia - this is the answer to your prayers.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">To retrace our steps for a bit before we get going you should remember that cancer is a virus and hence oncology. So just as we don.t treat the common virus such as flu with surgery or chemicals or radiology then why have we been treating cancef the population through our auto-immune r this way for the last 140 years. No illness can wipe out all of us and in the line of thinking cancer will be cured by a third osystem which is to say through our white blood cells. Both white and red blood cells form the hematological base of our bodies. Red blood cells carries oxygen and white blood cells or leukocytes, which are our army cells, do all the work requested by the auto-immune system.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">having said that then it should be pointed out that at the very worst cancer can only kill about a third of the human population if left unchecked. A third of the population has a sufficiently strong enough auto-immune system combined with white blood cells to kill cancer in any form. Another third basically holds cancer in check and will die from other ailments, while the remaining third are the ones we see in cancer clinics. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Even with chemo-therapy which has been around in some form or other since the mid 1940,s and radiology which has been around since 1886 (burn therapy) most of them will eventually die with a few induced clear periods and a greatly reduced auto-immune system combined with radiology but they will never be cured. The approach for the last 150 years since we knew what we were dealing with has been in completely the wrong direction.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">The real oncologists are doctors with a Phd in Bio-medicine not the average doctor who calls him or herself an oncologist in the hospitals. In fact all doctors in Ontario, Canada in our hospitals are “contract doctors” who see each and every cancer patient as a $70,000 billing point. They can not proscribe any new procedures unless it has been fully approved by OHIP so as not to risk their licence - even when they know there is a very successful treatment in the United States.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">As in our previous Blogs those with cancer are treated in the United States as if the the cancer is a virus and so it should be. In Canada, its pull out the scalpel, order up some radiology and start injection and proscribing chemicals. Lets destroy the auto-immune system system and hope for the best. Fantastic. Hell they are going to die anyways lets just help them on their way … and collect $75,000 per patient along the way. And the sliding scale of Stage One through Four is not helpful either. Canadian medicine at its best.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">So what do we do here in Ontario other than pray for those with cancer. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">We bring the treatment of cancer as a virus up from the United States and bring it to one of our hospitals for clinical trials here right under the nose of the doctors here and our precious OHIP. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">No scalpel, no chemo and no radiology. Those can now be placed in the museum were they belong and we treat cancer as a virus - no mater what stage it is in and cure it within weeks - and without ANY side effects - other than being cured of course. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">So lets star with children’s leukaemia shall we. By all means. rather than marching our children with cancer off to the local witch doctors - oopps did I say that - lets just call them doctors without a cure. Treatment sure and compassion sure - BUT NO CURE. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">As a parent you chose - Going through hell with chemo and radiology and dying - or life without side effects and the cure. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">I’ve seen this offer go to two children with leukaemia here in Ontario and the doctors here dissuaded the parents from opting for the cure. How sad is that. Actually it’s worse than sad - its pathetic but they kept their billing point at $75,000.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">This is 2014 - next year being 2015 the clinical trial studies are being brought up to Canada as I have previously induced - under licence of course - and we expect and have requested that Toronto Sikc Kids will be one of them. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">The treatment for leukaemia is so successful in the cure rate that it does”t matter which stage the patient is in with cancer. Unbelievable. Even stage four and with tumours. All gone in six to eight weeks. Yes GONE - CURED. So you have a child with a four pound tumour - try lifting four pounds of butter and image it gone in eight (8) weeks and your child is cured - then image the current cancer treatment process as it stand now. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">You are the parent - you chose - take your time - its only your child’s life - not hard is it.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">I know the doctors who both created the cure (you can read about it on Google - New England Journal of Medicine) and the lead doctors at the Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia. They are the best of the best. Actually they are the very best of the very best. AND they are bringing it here next year. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">So what is the cost to you the patient. Other than the cost for the stay in Toronto - McDonald’s House will not be able to handle everyone - is the cost of housing for the family - the cost of the treatment is carried by the pharmaceutical company and the cost of the clinical trials itself. In most case its carried by a company in the United States under a licensing agreement with the hospital and the company. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Just to have your case reviewed and profiled in the US would cost your $25,000 US funds. here ists nothing and for once OHIP actually is beneficial for the cancer patient. The actual process is discussed in a previous Blog so we don’t need to do that again. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">So what’s in kit for the <b>Macklin Medical Mission? </b>Nothing. Our Foundation is one of the oldest medical charities in Canada having stated in 1886 by Dr William E Macklin and Dr. Alfred H Macklin from the university of Toronto. Their story is also discussed in a previous Blog. Just a couple of doctors who graduated at he very top of their Class. The very best of the very best. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">So to support this move for the clinical trials from Philadelphia to Toronto - to bring the cure to cancer for leukaemia - we will be seeking your donations to help cover the cost of the patient’s stay in Toronto.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">One other thing we discovered over our years in the charitable business in Canada is that 96% of all donations come from individuals - company donations even on a matching basis from corporations amour to a mere 3% - and that is in a good year. Why because the cancer cure helps people not companies.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">And finally donating money to hospitals and the Canadian Cancer Center without proper financial guidance, which has been the case for over 100 years, means also supporting countless layers of bureaucracy and countless chemical companies and suppliers of out of date radiology machines as well as countless millions in salaries and benefits long before it benefits children. Countless lotteries have also wasted and continue to waste money and donations and are expensive to operate - the proof is that they simply have noting to show for the countless millions raised in a myriad of venues and donated to them - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! - on-going so called “treatments” without a cure IS nothing.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><b>So yes - we are asking for your generous donation </b>- to help kids be <b>cured</b> of leukaemia. Using the]same process will also cure breast cancer - or any other cancer and that’s next … </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><b>So if you have cancer or know of anyone who has cancer - especially children with leukaemia- the door is now open and this is the way-out. </b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; text-align: center;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><b>* * * * * *</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">However, just as it is in the United States, 95% of all cancer funding comes from individuals just like you and me. There are a number of ways in which you can make a donation to this program at the <b>Macklin Medical Mission</b> sponsored by the <b>Nancy-Griffon Foundation</b>, visit the following:</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">1. www.thenancygriffonfund.com and print the donations forms on the web page and mail it to us</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">2. Or send your draft or money order to the CIBC at 23 Mapleview Dr West in Barrie [Manager]</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">3. Or send your draft or money order to the TD at 60 Mapleview Dr West in Barrie [Manager]</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">All personal donations should be by way of a Money Order or a Draft drawn on a Canadian or American bank and the minimum is $100 in order to receive a tax receipt. Corporate donations can be made by way of a corporate cheque. Corporate tax receipts start at $1000. Please include your name and return address. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">If you work for a corporation, please ask your company to support this new program. We all know some one who has died from cancer, is dying from cancer or is in the process of receiving treatment for cancer and is undergoing radiation of chemotherapy or both with the possibility of surgery. Its time to stop and look at what the future holds for them and the rest of us. One both you the private citizen and the private corporation can decide who and what to fund. The ethics are also simple – choose “inept” or “adept”. The larger labs have failed us – thought they can replicate us; the larger cancer fund raising programs have failed because they failed to finance the smaller labs. It’s the story of the small Dr. Banting lab in day, we too may walk in their shoes. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Your choice now is very simple – this is a defining moment -the little town of Alliston which discovered insulin so many years ago - all over again. But now you know, thankfully to the <b>Macklin Medical Mission</b> and the internet. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Like so much else in cancer research - this is a private sector initiative - and a very successful one. The Government including OHIP will catch up only when it decides to do so. They are always late to the table. It’s your choice now, whether this takes three years, whether it takes four years, whether it takes five years; and how many more children and others have to die from cancer when they don’t have to. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 5px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">But clinical trails will be here next year. And due to current financial restrictions you will </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;">not</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"> find this arriving at your front door or your local mail box as a solicitation letter. This is it. Like everything else we do, we are only using modern technology.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Your financial support for the <b>Macklin Medical Mission</b> will be sincerely appreciated. Thank you.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; min-height: 15px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><b>Eric J. Macklin MBA., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><b>Managing</b> <b>Director</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><b>Macklin Medical Mission [Est. 1886]</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><b>Chairman</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><b>The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est. 1975]</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><b>Website: www.thenancygriffonfund.com</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><b>Youtube</b>: <b>Breast Cancer - A New Direction</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><b>Blog</b>: <b>www.themacklinmedicalmission/blog</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
Eric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-65430275163032864562013-12-04T13:38:00.000-08:002013-12-05T18:48:41.740-08:00Cure for Cancer - Emergency Funding Notice for the Nancy Griffon Foundation IncThe Nancy Griffon Fund Inc, the sponsor of the Macklin Medical Mission’s research into immunology as the ultimate cure for the cancer virus, is one of Canada’s oldest non-profit and we rely on donations and grants to carry on our work. If everyone reading this gave $20, we would only have to fundraise 1 day a year. www.thenancygriffonfund.com Please Donate today Thank you.
Eric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-70985356899495654342013-11-22T06:25:00.000-08:002013-11-22T06:25:08.493-08:00The Cancer Cure and How It Works - Macklin Medical MissionWhite blood cells, or leukocytes (also spelled "leucocytes"), are cells of the immune system involved in defending the body against both infectious diseases, viruses. and foreign materials. Five different and diverse types of leukocytes exist in the body with different functions, but they are all produced and derived from a multi-potent cell in the bone marrow known as a hematopoietic stem cell. They live for about three to four days in the average human body. Leukocytes are found throughout the body, including the blood and lymphatic system.
The physical properties of white blood cells (leukocytes), such as volume, conductivity, and granularity, may change due to activation, the presence of immature cells (T and B cells), or the presence of malignant leukocytes caused by viruses as in leukemia, and may be reported as Cell Population Data when a patient’s blood is tested. The name "white blood cell" derives from the fact that after centrifugation of a blood sample, the white cells are found in the buffy coat, a thin, typically white layer of nucleated cells between the sedimented (separated) red blood cells and the blood plasma.
There are of course five (5) different types of white blood cells but for the sake of this discussion we will deal with the Lymphocyte as part of our discussion this month again on dealing with cancer and its cure. Of these there are B-Cells which releases antibodies and assists activation of the all important T cells. Among the T-Cells there are special T-Cells called CD4+th (T Helper Cells which activate and regulate T and B cells and CD8+cyto-toxix T-Cells along with virus-infected and tumour cells.
Of particular interest are the γδ T cells which bridge between the innate and adaptive immune responses which bring about phagocytosis and necrosis of non-normal erratic cells. There are also the Regulatory (suppressor) T-Cells – these returns the functioning of the immune system to normal operation after infection; prevents auto-immunity – the natural killer cells for the virus-infected and tumour cells.
Are you with us so far as we try to put this into layman’s language? So let us recap a bit.
Lymphocyte
Lymphocytes are much more common in the lymphatic system (Lymph-nodes). Lymphocytes are distinguished by having a deeply staining nucleus that may be eccentric in location (peculiar to a location – specialized as to loci)), and a relatively small amount of cytoplasm. The blood has three types of lymphocytes:
· B Cells make antibodies that bind to pathogens to enable their destruction through necrosis.
· T-Cells:
o CD4+ helper T Cells: T cells having co-receptor CD4 are known as CD4+ T cells. These cells bind antigens presented by antigen-presenting cells via T-cell receptor interacting with a MHC-II complex on APC. Helper T cells coordinate the immune response and are the main focus of cancer killing white blood cells. For example, in acute HIV infection, these T cells are the main index to identify and codex the individual's immune system activity, which may range anywhere on a scale of 1 to 10. Same with cancer.
o CD*+ cytotoxic T Cells: T cells having co-receptor of CD8 are known as CD8+ T cells. These cells bind antigens presented on MHC I complex of virus-infected cells such as cancer or tumour cells and kill them. All nucleated cells possess MHC I on their surfaces.
o γδ T cells possess an alternative T-Cell receptor as opposed to CD4+ and CD8+ αβ T cells and share characteristics of helper T cells, cytotoxic T cells and natural killer of rogue virus cells – such as cancer.
· Natural Killer Cells are able to kill cells of the body that have lost the MHC I molecule, as they have been infected by a virus or have become cancerous – an oncolvirus.
This is the case for over two thirds of the human population as confirmed by autopsies world wide.
· Un-Natural Killer Cells: For the remaining other third of the population that where oncolviruses get ahead of the body’s auto-immune system that they require modified nano-nuclear modification of the white blood cell with T-cells to recognize the cancer cell for what it is and to “get on with the job of necrosis and to recognize the MHC I molecule.”
The MHC I Class Molecule
MHC Class I molecules are one of two primary classes of major histo-compatibility complexes (MHC I) molecules (the other being MHC II class) and are found on nearly every nucleated cell of the body. Their function is to display fragments of proteins from within the cell to T-cells. Healthy cells will be ignored, while cells containing foreign proteins (or a foreign cellular matric – i.e. cancer) will be attacked by the immune system. Because MHC I Class molecules present peptides derived from cystolic proteins, the pathway of MHC I Class presentation is often called the “cytosolic or endogenous pathway”.
Again for those patients whose auto-immune system and where their white blood cells do not recognize the oncolvirues through a non-acting MHC 1 complex then these patients need to have their white blood cells modified or translated with the “appropriately educated T-Cells”
Or do we simply carry on with the cell killing chemotherapy and radiology which destroys or so depresses the patient’s auto-immune system that the patient dies of something else or more than often is open to a recurrence of the cancer or allows cancer to turn up somewhere else.
So why then treat cancer when we already know how to cure it!
Function of MHC I Class cells
MHC I Class molecules bind peptides generated mainly from degradation of cytosolic proteins by the proteasome of the target cell. The MHC I + peptide complex is then inserted into the plasma membrane of the cell(s) in question. As a result the peptide is bound to the extra-cellular part of the MHC I Class molecule. Thus, the function of the MHC I Class is to display intra-cellular proteins to cytotoxic T Cells (CTLs) for necrosis. However, MHC I Class can also present peptides generated from exogenous proteins, in a process known as “cross-presentation” which is also used to modify white blood cells with T-Cells or in some cases B-Cells to then recognize oncolviruses to eliminate them.
A normal cell will display peptides from normal cellular protein turnover on its MHC I Class, and CTLs (cytotoxic T Cells) will not be activated in response to them due to central and peripheral tolerance “matching mechanisms”. When a cell expresses foreign proteins (causing a non-match sequence), such as after viral infection, a fraction of the MHC I Class will automatically display these non-matching peptides on the cell surface. As a result of this non-matching foreign cell structure (chemical imbalance) , CTLs specific for the MHC:peptide complex will recognize and kill the presenting (foreign) cell.
Alternatively, MHC I Class itself can serve as an inhibitory ligand (highlighted link) for Natural Killer Cells (NKs). A simple “reduction in the normal levels” of surface MHC I Class, a mechanism employed by some viruses during immune evasion or in certain tumours, will activate NK cell killing. In this way the auto-immune system has two ways of recognizing “abnormal cell structure(s)” and dealing with them through necrosis.
Hence this gives clinical labs two methods of taking cells from the cancer patient and modifying them in the lab with T-cells and B-cells to “induce” NK’s and/or white blood cells to perform the process of necrosis on “non-indigenous” or “foreign molecular cellular structures” to the modified or “translated” white blood cells within the blood stream or organ structure within the body for recognition and timely disposal/removal. That is kill cancer and with that preserve the method of necrosis for the body (similar to a vaccine for any virus) so that if the cancer returned it is destroyed by the patient’s now “up-dated” auto-immune system as a permanent cure. Truly not a difficult process.
And I say again - So why then treat cancer when we already know how to cure it!
Effect of Viruses – Chief among them being Cancer
In summary then, as I will leave the finer details of the chemical structure of MHC I Class molecules to the bio-chemists, the MHC’s are loaded with peptides generated from the degradation of ubiquitous and thus ubiquitinated cytosolic proteins in proteasomes. As viruses induce cellular expression of viral proteins, some of these products are tagged for degradation, with the resulting peptide fragments entering the endoplasmic reticulum and binding to MHC I molecules. It is in this way, the MHC I Class-dependent pathway of antigen presentation, that the virus infected cells signal T-cells that abnormal proteins are being produced as a result of a viral infection - cancer.
The ultimate fate of the virus-infected cell is almost always the induction of apoptosis (programmed cellular death or necrosis) through cell-mediated immunity, reducing the risk of infecting other neighbouring cells.
As an evolutionary response to this method of “immune surveillance”, many cancer viruses as well as others for that group of the human population where cancer cells take over are able to down-regulate or otherwise prevent the presentation of MHC I Class molecules on the cell surface. In contrast to cytotoxic T lymphocytes (T-Cells), and Natural Killer (NK) cells are normally “inactivated” or simply become “unrecognizable” cognizing (non-cognitive) MHC I molecules on the surface of cells. Therefore, in the absence of MHC I molecules doing their job, (the body’s Plan B) NK cells are activated and recognize the cell as aberrant, (abhorrent) suggesting they may be infected by viruses attempting to evade immune destruction. Several human cancers also show down-regulation of MHC I, giving negatively transformed cells the same survival advantage of being able to avoid normal immune surveillance designed to destroy any infected or transformed cells. Hence the requirement for re-educating some white cells through the process of nano-nuclear molecular medicine in the lab to make the white blood cell recognize the aberrant cell for what it truly is and eliminate it.
As the Chairman of the Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc and the Macklin Medical Mission I sincerely hope that this Blog in some small way helps to explain what is already available to deal with the scourge of the cancer oncolvirues and the body’ own auto-immune defence mechanism and in some cases for some people (a great many in most cases).
And I say again - So why then treat cancer when we already know how to cure it!
However, in Canada just as it is in the United States, 95% of all cancer funding comes from individuals just like you and me. There are a number of ways in which you can make a donation to this program at the Macklin Medical Mission sponsored by the Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc - visit us at:
1. www.thenancygriffonfund.com and print the donations forms on the web page and mail it to us
2. Or send your draft or money order to the CIBC at 23 Mapleview Dr West in Barrie [Manager]
3. Or send your draft or money order to the TD at 60 Mapleview Dr West in Barrie [Manager]
All personal donations should be by way of a Money Order or a Draft drawn on a Canadian or American bank and the minimum is $100 in order to receive a tax receipt. Corporate donations can be made by way of a corporate cheque. Please include your name and return address.
If you work for a corporation, please ask your company to support this new program. We all know some one who has died from cancer, is dying from cancer or is in the process of receiving treatment for cancer and is undergoing radiation of chemotherapy or both with the possibility of surgery. Its time to stop and look at what the future holds for them and the rest of us. One day, we too may walk in their shoes.
Your choice now is very simple – this is a defining moment - both you the private citizen and the private corporation can decide who and what to fund. The ethics are also simple – choose “inept” or “adept”. The larger labs have failed us – thought they can replicate us; the larger cancer raising programs have failed because they failed to finance the smaller labs. It’s the story of the small Dr. Banting lab which discovered insulin so many years ago all over again. But now you know, thankfully to the internet.
This is a private sector initiative. The Government will catch up only when it decides to do so. They are always late to the table. It’s your choice now, whether this takes three years, whether it takes four years, whether it takes five years; and how many more have to die from cancer when they don’t have to. And due to current financial restrictions you will not find this arriving at your front door as a solicitation letter. This is it. Like everything else we do, we are only using modern technology.
Your financial support for the Macklin Medical Mission would be sincerely appreciated. Thank you.
Eric J. Macklin MBA, FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE
Chairman
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation [Est. 1975]
The Macklin Medical Mission [Est. 1886]
See us at: www.thenancygriffonfund.com
Youtube: Breast Cancer - A New Direction
Facebook: www.facebook.com/eric.macklin
Eric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-39582377810617982412013-10-01T17:45:00.002-07:002013-10-01T17:45:36.520-07:00Biological Therapy For Cancer TreatmentFirst - What is biological therapy?
Biological therapy (also called immunotherapy, biological response modifier therapy, or biotherapy) uses the body's immune system to fight cancer. The cells, antibodies, and organs of the immune system work to protect and defend the body against foreign invaders, such as bacteria or viruses. Physicians and researchers have found that the immune system might also be able to both determine the difference between healthy cells and cancer cells in the body, and to eliminate the cancer cells.
For the cancer virus, there are as many variations of the “disease” as there are various types of body organs. Equally, and as a corollary then, there is one cure with as many variations as there are cancers due to the patient’s white blood cell and it’s ability to be amended, modified, translated or re-engineered as there are T-Cells and B-Cells to create a vaccine. Initially it is by blood group, then by type of organ (hence biopsies) to create the vaccine then by DNA group. Some vaccines will be ubiquitous to many, others will be a more specialized boutique vaccines - known as Bio-Logics.
Biological therapies are designed to boost the immune system “to clue it in other words”, either directly or indirectly, by assisting in the following “bio-logical” process:
· making cancer cells more recognizable by the immune system, and therefore more susceptible to destruction by the immune system
· boosting the killing power of immune system cells
· changing the way cancer cells grow, so that they act more like healthy cells
· stopping the process that changes a normal cell into a cancerous cell
· enhancing the body's ability to repair or replace normal cells damaged or destroyed by other forms of cancer treatment, such as chemotherapy or radiation
· preventing cancer cells from spreading to other parts of the body.
The immune system includes different types of white blood cells - each with a different way to fight against foreign or diseased cells, including cancer:
· Lymphocytes - white blood cells, including B cells, T cells, and NK cells.
· B cells - produce antibodies that attack other cells.
· T cells - directly attack cancer cells themselves and signal other immune system cells to defend the body.
· Natural killer cells (NK cells) - produce chemicals that bind to and kill foreign invaders in the body.
· Monocytes - white blood cells that swallow and digest foreign particles.
These types of white blood cells - B cells, T cells, natural killer cells, and monocytes - are in the blood and thus circulate to every part of the body, providing protection from cancer and other diseases. Cells secrete two types of substances: antibodies and cytokines. Antibodies respond to (harmful) substances that they recognize, called antigens. Specific (helpful) antibodies match specific (foreign) antigens by locking together. Cytokines are proteins produced by some immune system cells and can directly attack cancer cells. Cytokines are "messengers" that "communicate" with other cells.
What are the different types of biological therapies?
There are many different types of biological therapies used in cancer treatment, including the following:
· non-specific immunomodulating agents
Non-specific immunomodulating agents are biological therapy drugs that stimulate the immune system, causing it to produce more cytokines and antibodies to help fight cancer and infections in the body. Fighting infection is important for a person with cancer.
· biological response modifiers (BRMs)
Biological response modifiers (BRMs) change the way the body's defenses interact with cancer cells. BRMs are produced in a laboratory and given to patients to:
o boost the body's ability to fight the disease.
o direct the immune system's disease fighting powers to disease cells.
o strengthen a weakened immune system.
BRMs include interferons, interleukins, colony-stimulating factors, monoclonal antibodies, cytokine therapy, and of course bio-cellular vaccines:
· vaccine therapy.
Vaccine therapy is perhaps the primary new biological therapy to destroy cancer cells and related tumours by using the body’s own immune system through the use of modified, translational, enhancements, re-engineered white blood cells. For many this already works on its own, for others it needs a friendly nudge in the right direction and for others it’s a re-educational process with the use of the patient’s own T-Cells or in some cases B-Cells.
The obvious benefit of a vaccine therapy has been proven time and time again.
After all, cancer is simply an oncolvirues and should be treated as such. Again, and as with so many infectious diseases, vaccines are given A. before the disease develops, and of course B. after the disease develops.
Cancer vaccines, however, are given after the disease develops, when the tumour is small, or now in so many cases when the tumour is in Stage Four. Scientists are testing the value of vaccines for class four negative breast cancer having successfully used it for leukemia and melanoma and other cancers. Sometimes, vaccines are combined with other therapies such as cytokine therapy – but it should be clearly noted that vaccines do work and have so for some time now.
Are there side effects of biological therapies?
As each person's individual medical profile and diagnosis is different, so is his/her reaction to any vaccine type treatment just as you would have had you had a cold. Side effects may be severe, mild, or absent. In all cases as the body discovers and reacts to an invasive virus the white blood cells go into action almost immediately and as part of the process the temperature of the body will rise as it “burns off” the “non-friendly” invader cells. Be sure to discuss with your cancer care team any/all possible side effects of treatment before the treatment begins as with any other treatment.
Side effects of practically all biological therapy, which often mimic flu-like symptoms, vary according to the type of therapy/remedy given and may include the following:
· fever
· chills
· nausea
· vomiting
· loss of appetite
· fatigue
Specifically, cytokine therapy often causes fever, chills, aches, and fatigue. Other side effects include a rash or swelling at the injection site. Therapy can cause fatigue and bone pain and may affect blood pressure.
A “cytokine” is a natural body protein that acts as regulators of host (patient) and the various levels of responses to infection, immune responses, inflammation, and trauma which for the most part will results in increased body temperature – the body is “reacting” thanks to white blood cells suddenly “getting very busy”.
Note: These side effects as sited pale “substantially” in comparison with those side effects experienced by chemotherapy (around since 1943) with a whole host of chemicals which destroy good and bad cells in their path and to varying degree most of which can not be restored, and radiology (burn treatment around since 1886) which also kills good and bad cells all the way through the body including the tell-tale burn on the skin front and back.
Surgery – for biopsies yes … As a cancer treatment definitely not. (Hell just lop it off – right?)
In all too many cases this vastly out-dated form of cancer “treatment” allows for the recurrence of cancer and so weakening the body’s auto-immune system (white blood cells combined with cytokines) to such a point that the patient will surfer a recurrence of the same and or other forms of cancer 40% of the time – especially the very young and the very old.
So - Your choice now is very simple – this is a defining moment - both you the private citizen and the private corporation can decide who and what to fund. The ethics are also simple – choose “inept” or “adept”. The larger labs have failed us – thought they can replicate us; the larger cancer raising programs have failed because they failed to finance the smaller labs. It’s the story of the small Dr. Banting lab which discovered insulin so many years ago all over again. But now you know, thankfully to the internet.
This is a private sector initiative. The Government will catch up only when it decides to do so. They are always late to the table. It’s your choice now, whether this takes three years, whether it takes four years, whether it takes five years; and how many more have to die from cancer when they don’t have to. And due to current financial restrictions you will not find this arriving at your front door as a solicitation letter. This is it. Like everything else we do, we are only using modern technology.
Your financial support for the Macklin Medical Mission would be sincerely appreciated. Thank you.
Eric J. Macklin MBA., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE
Director
Macklin Medical Mission [Est. 1886]
Chairman
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est. 1975]
See us at: www.thenancygriffonfund.com
Youtube: Breast Cancer - A New Direction
Facebook: www.facebook.com/eric.macklin
Twitter: http://twitter.com/beowolfe1
And: http://www.gofundme.com/2q7rfk
Addendum
For those of you in the computer industry think of bio-logics as compu-logics with white blood cells and T-cells as micro-bytes. Additionally I ask you to think of cancer in its many forms a variation on a theme much like the computer industry, in this case in terms of real life – Grand Theft Cancer as in pretend life – Grand Theft Auto.
By extension in this comparison it will take the same amount of money and technicians to develop a cancer vaccine program for just one type of cancer (game of life) which is about $500 million and similarly for a computer program (pretend game of life) like Grand Theft Auto at $280 million.
The cancer vaccines in all their variations will be sold for $200 to $300 per patient once in general use much like games are sold at $65 each to recover their research and development costs. In this case vaccines will outsell games 100 to one. Something to think about in the very near future.
Eric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-33734852408340520222013-09-02T10:01:00.002-07:002013-09-02T13:33:25.257-07:00Childhood Cancer and the Macklin Medical MissionSeptember Marks Childhood Cancer Awareness Month
In Canada
September 12 is set aside by the Nancy-Griffon foundation and its Macklin Medical Mission Project to Remember the hundreds of thousands of children, families and caregivers touched by childhood Cancer.
Until now, advances in childhood cancer have been dramatic - 40 years ago cure rates were less than 10 percent; today, 80 percent overall are cured. Recognizing that there is more to be done. And the Canadian Federal Government needs to more to assist and to expand paediatric cancer research, awareness and to create the national childhood cancer research registry.
“This year, 12,500 families will hear the words, ‘Your child has cancer.’ On behalf of the thousands of families, survivors, and caregivers, we at the nancy-Griffon Foundation remain united in our commitment to conquer childhood cancer. We applaud the Federal Government and the Provinces for proclaiming September 12 as National Childhood Cancer Awareness Day concurrent with our research affiliates in the United States,” said Eric Macklin, National Executive Director, the Macklin Medical Mission and the President of the Nancy-Griffon Foundation of Canada. “September as National Childhood Cancer Awareness month is a major opportunity to grow our community – both on the personal and corporate level to let people know that they can help us find a cure and help ensure that we can reach the day when every child with cancer is guaranteed a cure.”
Despite the progress in childhood cancer research, about one in five children continues to die and cancer remains the #1 leading cause of childhood death from disease in Canada and the United States. More than 40,000 children and adolescents currently are being treated for childhood cancer.
"Each day that paediatric cancer research goes under-funded, the road to discovering new treatments and cures become longer, and more children die - needlessly,” said Eric Macklin of the Macklin Medical Mission and the Children’s Oncology Group. With proper funding levels – we can conquer childhood cancer.”
To ensure continued Federal support for childhood cancer research funding, the Canadian House of Commons and its representatives needs to form the first Pediatric Cancer Caucus - we need members of Parliament to be specifically dedicated to conquering childhood cancer and to support the efforts of the Nancy-Griffon Foundation.
“Of the 12,500 children diagnosed with cancer each year, more than 2,000 of these young lives are unnecessarily lost,” said Eric Macklin. Dr. Lionel Macklin was the head of the paediatric oncology ward at the Toronto Sick Kids Hospital for a number of years and became particularly aware of the promise that cancer research could offer for so many children in this country. By allowing more patients to survive and improving their quality of life the Macklin Medical Mission both here in Canada and abroad especially in Nanjing China remains dedicated in its mission in fighting for the often voiceless victims of cancer of this horrible disease.”
For the second year, the Macklin medical Mission and its “Virtual Walk for Millions” will unite people across the country in the fight against childhood cancer. In September, our challenge is to bring together 10,00 individuals virtually in support of the 10,00 kids who will be diagnosed each year.
To recognize September as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, the Macklin Medical Mission will use original signed artwork from its various sponsors through the Young Artist program (kids with cancer and their siblings donate art) to create a special line of mugs, t-shirts, bumper stickers and buttons to help raise funding for childhood cancer research.
About the Macklin Medical Mission
The Macklin Medical Mission (the oldest charity in Canada since 1886) sponsored by the Nancy-Griffon Foundation supports the work of the Macklin Oncology Group (COG), one of the world’s largest cooperative cancer research organization, that raises funds for children with cancer. Together with other centers, we are committed to completely conquering the final threshold of childhood cancer through scientific discovery and compassionate care. For more information, visit: www.thenancygriffonfund.com
This is a private sector initiative. The Government will catch up only when it decides to do so. They are always late to the table.
Your financial support for the Macklin Medical Mission would be sincerely appreciated. Thank you.
Eric J. Macklin MBA., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE
Director
Macklin Medical Mission [Est. 1886]
Chairman
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est. 1975]
See us at:
Youtube: Breast Cancer - A New Direction
Facebook: www.facebook.com/eric.macklin
Twitter: http://twitter.com/beowolfe1
http://www.gofundme.com/2q7rfk
Eric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-891170857873972692013-08-01T09:50:00.000-07:002013-08-01T09:50:35.354-07:00Radiation Therapy Can Make Cancers 30x More MalignantJournal - CANCER
Following on some of our previous posts articles such as these can only encourage the great many now and the great many to come who will get any one of a hundred types of cancer to join us at the Macklin Medical Mission in Canada which is sponsored by the NANCY-GRIFFON Foundation funding research into modified molecular medicine using patient’s white blood cells with their T-cells for a highly successful and unique 1:1 cancer cure for leukemia and melanoma. With your financial support we will apply the same technology for the treatment of breast cancer. It’s time to move beyond the outdated use of chemotherapy and radiology and move in a much needed new direction. Please support us. Youtube: Breast Cancer - A New Direction. www.thenancygriffonfund.com
Following on the heels of recent revelations that x-ray mammography [radiology] may be contributing to an epidemic of future radiation-induced breast cancers, in a new article titled, “Radiation Treatment Generates Therapy Resistant Cancer Stem Cells from Aggressive Breast cancer Cells” - published in the journal Cancer July 1st, 2012, researchers from the Department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center report that radiation treatment actually drives breast cancer cells into greater malignancy.
The researchers found that even when radiation kills half of the tumour cells treated, the surviving cells which are resistant to treatment, known as induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSCs), were up to 30 times more likely to form tumours than the non-irradiated breast cancer cells. In other words, the radiation treatment regresses the total population of cancer cells, generating the false appearance that the treatment is working, but actually increases the ratio of highly malignant to benign cells within that tumour, eventually leading to the iatrogenic (treatment-induced) death of the patient.
Last month, a related study published in the journal Stem Cells titled, "Radiation-induced reprogramming of breast cells," found that ionizing radiation reprogrammed less malignant (more differentiated) breast cancer cells into iBCSCs, helping to explain why conventional treatment actually enriches the tumour population with higher levels of treatment resistant cells.
A growing body of research now indicts conventional cancer treatment with chemotherapy and radiation as a major contributing cause of cancer patient mortality. The primary reason for this is the fact that cancer stem cells, which are almost exclusively resistant to conventional treatment, are not being targeted, but to the contrary, are encouraged to thrive when exposed to chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
In order to understand how conventional treatment drives the cancer into greater malignancy, we must first understand what cancer is....
What Are Cancer Stem Cells, And Why Are They Resistant To Treatment?
Tumours are actually highly organized assemblages of cells, which are surprisingly well-coordinated for cells that are supposed to be the result of strictly random mutation. They are capable of building their own blood supply (angiogenesis), are able to defend themselves by silencing cancer-suppression genes, secreting corrosive enzymes to move freely throughout the body, alter their metabolism to live in low oxygen and acidic environments, and know how to remove their own surface-receptor proteins to escape detection by white blood cells. In a previous article titled “ Is Cancer an Ancient Survival Program Unmasked?” - we delved deeper into this emerging view of cancer as an evolutionary throw-back and not a by-product of strictly random mutation.
Because tumours are not simply the result of one or more mutated cells "going rogue" and producing exact clones of itself (multi-mutational and clonal hypotheses), but are a diverse group of cells having radically different phenotypal characteristics, chemotherapy and radiation will affect each cell type differently.
Tumours are composed of a wide range of cells, many of which are entirely benign.
The most deadly cell type within a tumour or blood cancer, known as cancer stem cells (CSCs), has the ability to give rise to all the cell types found within that cancer.
They are capable of dividing by mitosis to form either two stem cells (increasing the size of the stem population), or one daughter cell that goes on to differentiate into a variety of cell types, and one daughter cell that retains stem-cell properties.
This means CSCs are tumourigenic (tumour-forming) and should be the primary target of cancer treatment because they are capable of both initiating and sustaining cancer. They are also increasingly recognized to be the cause of relapse and metastasis following conventional treatment.
CSCs are exceptionally resistant to conventional treatment for the following reasons
1. CSCs account for less than 1 in 10,000 cells within a particular cancer, making them difficult to destroy without destroying the vast majority of other cells comprising the tumour.
2. CSCs are slow to replicate, making them less likely to be destroyed by chemotherapy and radiation treatments that target cells which are more rapidly dividing.
3. Conventional chemotherapies target differentiated and differentiating cells, which form the bulk of the tumour, but these are unable to generate new cells like the CSCs which are undifferentiated.
The existence of CSCs explains why conventional cancer treatment has completely missed the boat when it comes to targeting the root cause of tumours. One reason for this is because existing cancer treatments have mostly been developed in animal models where the goal is to shrink a tumour. Because mice are most often used and their life spans do not exceed two years, tumour relapse is very difficult, if not impossible to study.
The first round of chemotherapy never kills the entire tumour, but only a percentage. This phenomenon is called the fractional kill. The goal is to use repeated treatment cycles (usually six) to regress the tumor population down to zero, without killing the patient.
What normally occurs is that the treatment selectively kills the less harmful populations of cells (daughter cells), increasing the ratio of CSCs to benign and/or less malignant cells. This is not unlike what happens when antibiotics are used to treat certain infections. The drug may wipe out 99.9% of the target bacteria, but .1% have or develop resistance to the agent, enabling the .1% to come back even stronger with time.
The antibiotic, also, kills the other beneficial bacteria that help the body fight infection naturally, in the same way that chemotherapy kills the patient's immune system (white blood cells and bone marrow), ultimately supporting the underlying conditions making disease recurrence more likely.
The reality is that the chemotherapy, even though it has reduced the tumour volume, by increasing the ratio of CSCs to benign daughter cells, has actually made the cancer more malignant.
Radiotherapy has also been shown to increase cancer stem cells in the prostate, ultimately resulting in cancer recurrence and worsened prognosis. Cancer stem cells may also explain why castration therapy often fails in prostate cancer treatment.
Non-Toxic Natural Substances Which Target and Kill CSCs (Cancer Stem Cells)
Natural compounds have been shown to exhibit three properties which make them suitable alternatives to conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy:
1. High margin of safety: Relative to chemotherapy agents such as 5-fluorouracil natural compounds are two orders of magnitude safer
2. Selective Cytotoxicity: The ability to target only those cells that are cancerous and not healthy cells
3. CSCs Targeting: The ability to target the cancer stem cells within a tumour population.
The primary reason why these substances are not used in conventional treatment is because they are not patentable, nor profitable. Sadly, the criteria for drug selection are not safety, effectiveness, accessibility and affordability. If this were so, natural compounds would form an integral part of the standard of care in modern cancer treatment.
Source: Journal for CANCER - by Ji Saver – June 26th 2013
Eric J. Macklin B.Com., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE
Macklin Medical Mission [Est 1886]
Chairman
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est 1975]
See us at:
Youtube: Breast Cancer - A New Direction
Facebook: www.facebook.com/eric.macklin
Twitter: http://twitter.com/beowolfe1
http://www.gofundme.com/2q7rfk
Eric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-35165166178156343632013-07-13T07:02:00.001-07:002013-07-14T10:41:52.578-07:00Charitable Giving in CanadaCharitable giving falling to fewer Canadians
Number of donors decreasing but size of donations growing
By David Simms of CBC News and drawn from Statistics Canada with additional comments provided by Eric Macklin of the Macklin Medical Mission [www.thenancygriffonfund.com] established in 1886 – 32 years before there was Federal charities tax code – and Cathy Barr of Imagine Canada established in 2003.
Canadians are among the most generous people in the world, but there are worrisome signs that the responsibility of supporting charities is falling on fewer sets of shoulders.
"Compared to other countries, Canada has a large and vibrant charitable sector," said Cathy Barr, senior vice-president of Imagine Canada, a national charitable organization that promotes Canada's charities and non-profit organizations [which like everyone else draws their stats from Stats Canada].
"Americans gave more than $298.42 billion in 2011 to their favorite causes despite the economic conditions. Total giving in 2012 was up 4 percent from $286.91 in 2011" said Eric Macklin, Chairman of the Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc.. This slight increase is reflective of recovering economic confidence." As well, Eric says that: "In the U.S. the greatest portion of charitable giving, $217.79 billion, was given by individuals or household donors. Gifts from individuals represented 73 percent of all contributed dollars, similar to figures for 2011. Corporate Foundations gave $41.67 billion, accounting for 14 percent of all philanthropy Individual, bequest and estimated family foundation giving combined were approximately $262.61 billion or 88 percent of total giving in the USA."
As a final note in regards to philanthropy Eric noted that: "Corporate giving, which is tied to cyclical corporate profits, held steady in 2012 compared with 2011, totaling $14.55 billion (a 0.1 percent decline in current dollars). Corporate giving accounted for only 5 percent of all charitable giving and slightly ahead of that in Canada which is running just over 2%. [or on a comparison U.S to Canada that would $14.55 billion/10/2 = $727.5 million]" In summary Eric noted that "Corporations donate about 4%, bequests about 8%, other Foundations about 14% and individuals accounting for the rest at 74%. This gives anyone in the fund raising business a fair idea as to how to target their market place.
"Going forward we have a very long way to go to catch up to the Americans to fund research here in Canada and in terms of research results especially for that of cancer," said Eric Macklin of the Nancy-Griffon Foundation and their primary project being the Macklin Medical Mission fund raising program for Breast Cancer using the successful micro-molecular adaptation of the patient's white blood cells.
But Barr says that while Canadians' generosity should be praised, a worrying trend has emerged in recent years.
"The data over time shows that the percentage of Canadians donating to charity has been declining," she said.
From a high of almost 30 per cent in the early 1990s, the proportion of taxpayers claiming charitable donations on their tax returns had fallen to 23 per cent by the 2011 tax year.
The average annual donation, meanwhile, has climbed from $458 in 1984 to $1,437 (or $748 in 1984 dollars) by 2010, according to data compiled by Imagine Canada from Statistics Canada and Canada Revenue Agency figures.
"We're getting a situation where fewer and fewer people are donating larger amounts," Barr said. Less than a 1/4 of tax filers claim donations
From figures released from Stats Canada on February 13, 2013 showed that 5.71 million tax filers claimed charitable contributions for the 2011 tax year, down 0.6 per cent from the year earlier. Giving totalled $8.47 billion, up 2.6 per cent from 2010.
The median donation nationally was unchanged from 2010, at $260. Average donations ranged from $430 for the 0 to 24 age group to $2,000 for those 65 and over. Manitoba had the highest percentage of tax filers declaring a donation, at 25.9 per cent, followed by Saskatchewan, at 25.0 per cent, and Prince Edward Island, at 24.9%.
The metropolitan area with the highest median donation, for the 10th straight year, was Abbotsford–Mission, B.C., at $630. Calgary followed at $400, Vancouver and Victoria at $390, and Kelowna, B.C., and Saskatoon at $380.
Statistics Canada qualified the numbers with the reminder that tax filers can carry donations forward for up to five years after the year in which they were made, which might skew year-to-year comparisons on the amount of giving.
And spouses with higher incomes can also claim contributions made by their partners, which could mean the number of donors was actually higher than the number who claimed tax credits.
Tax credit changes proposed
That trend toward a shrinking donor pool has led Imagine Canada over the last two years to propose changes to the tax treatment of donations. It has recommended the introduction of something called the stretch tax credit, which would reward donors who exceed their previous highest level of giving with a larger credit.
Currently, the federal tax credit allows taxable income to be reduced by 15 per cent of the value of total donations under $200 and by 29 per cent above that. [In the United States this is set at a maximum of 50% of all earned income.]
Increase your personal highest total contribution amount, Imagine proposes, and the government would increase the credit to 25 per cent — for total donations at or below $200 — or 39 per cent, for total donations above $200 [approaching the levels in the US.]
Barr says tax deductibility might not be the driving force that convinces people to donate, but there is evidence that donors give more because of it. Health, social services among top recipients
Imagine Canada's aim with the stretch credit is to encourage more donors, especially more small donors, and to give charities something with which to engage and encourage their supporters to increase their giving.
Exactly which causes are the closest to the hearts of Canadians depends on how you measure it.
Based on the proportion of those who donate, Imagine Canada's data shows health and social services are the top cause, with more than 50 per cent of Canadians who give donating to health institutions and more than 40 per cent giving to social service organizations. A third give to religious organizations or institutions.
Going by the size of donations, religious causes are at the top, with average donations of $450, followed by universities and colleges, at $300.
Religious causes lead based on the proportion of the number of donations, accounting for 40 per cent of all charitable donations.
But Barr says there's been a "fairly slow but clear" declining trend over the last decade in the share of donations going to religious causes, dropping from 45 per cent in 2004.
Support for international causes, though still small, has increased from four per cent in 2004 to eight per cent in 2010. But that includes disaster relief, which might skew the results if there have been more high-profile natural disasters in certain years.
Canada ranks high.
Trying to determine how Canada's charitable activity compares with that of other countries is a challenge.
A 2005 study by Johns Hopkins University and Imagine Canada suggested that out of 37 countries, only the Netherlands – at 14.4 per cent — surpassed Canada – at 11.1 per cent — in terms of the percentage of the economically active population that was either paid or volunteered in the non-profit sector.
Britain's Charities Aid Foundation, in an analysis released a year later, complained that there is "very little standardized international data" on giving.
But its data ranked Canada third in terms of giving as a percentage of GDP, at 0.72 per cent, behind the the United Kingdom, at 0.73 per cent and of course the number one country being the U.S., at 1.67 per cent. It is also noted that the rest of the world depends on the U.S. to lead in medical research for the benefit of the world.
Not only is the U.S. number one in the world but statistics show that because of this that the rest of the world including the United Kingdom and Canada are at least ten years behind the U.S. in terms of cancer research.
Both Eric Macklin, Chair of the Macklin Medical Mission, a charity that is the oldest in Canada and Cathy Barr of Imagine Canada have blunt advice for those Canadians concerned about the declining proportion of Canadians donating: "Get out there and donate especially to new research initiatives in the field of cancer research." [www.thenancygriffonfund.com]
If you do that, there are some things you need to know in order to get the benefit of a tax credit.
Make sure to get a receipt for the donation, one which has the charity's name and registration number, date, serial number, the donation amount, the donor's name and has been signed on behalf of the organization. Include these with your return if you file by paper, and store them away if you file online in case your return is reviewed by the CRA.
Giving to charities in Canada makes you eligible for a non-refundable tax credit only, “rather than a deduction which is the case in the U.S. up to a maximum of 50% of all earned income, which means it can only be used to reduce tax owed, not taxable income again as is the case in the U.S., and there won't be any benefit if you don't owe any tax. A donor can get credit for donations up to a limit of 75 per cent of net income against tax owed which is usually 37% of earned income and explains the large disparity between Canada and the US”, says Eric Macklin of the Macklin Medical Mission.
Eric goes on to say that: “Those Canadians who donate certified Canadian cultural property to museums and the like or ecologically sensitive conservation lands might be able to claim 100 per cent of income.”
“And again, an estate can get a tax credit for up to 100 per cent of a deceased person's income — in the year of death and going back one year against taxes owed. As Eric Macklin says: this is 100% of 37% and includes dividends. Not the 50% of all earned income no matter what the source is in the U.S.”
“The Canadian government sets the “tax filter for revenue to CRA so high that it discourages many Canadian from the act of giving in the first place especially corporations which now require their participation to be based on employee participation for tax purposes.”
Usually, the tax savings equal the tax credit. But there are exceptions:
· Residents of Quebec are entitled to an overall abatement of 16.5 per cent on their basic federal tax, and that lowers the tax break they get federally for charitable donations.
· Tax filers who are required to pay provincial income surtax can use their charitable tax credit to reduce both the base income taxes and the provincial surtax.
Governments and Employer “may” match donations
As well, those donating publicly traded securities may increase their tax savings by reducing their capital gains tax.
There are ways to get a bigger bang for your charitable dollar.
As mentioned above, the tax credit rate rises significantly once the total value of your donation crosses above $200. When you combine the federal and provincial credits, the tax saving is about 19 to 35 per cent of the total up to $200 — depending on the province — and, above that, ranges from 36 to 49 per cent, again depending on the province.
As mentioned above, there are two other issues to consider: the CRA allows couples to assign donations to the partner with the higher income and also to carry unclaimed receipts forward, for up to five years, to allow the timing of claims in a year of higher income.
There's also another way in which timing comes into play: if you give in December, you will minimize the time before you get the refund value the following spring.
You can also choose to support a charity or cause that is eligible for matching donations from your employer or the federal government. For example, the Macklin Medical Mission has a partial list of employers that support its work in terms of modified molecular research in the new field of cancer research.
If you're not sure who should be at the top of your list of worthy charities, there are a wide range of agencies the CRA registers, including charities, national arts service organizations, amateur athletic associations, low-cost housing corporations, provinces, municipalities, universities (including some outside Canada that have Canadian students enrolled), foreign charities to which the federal government has made a gift and the United Nations and its agencies.
The CRA even provides a site where you can search the list of registered charities including the Nancy-Griffon Foundation which is the primary sponsor for the Macklin Medical Mission established back in 1886. [www.thenancygriffonfund.com]
5 Facts about Charitable Giving
1. Charitable giving for tax purposes can extend well beyond money and include different types of gifts, ranging from securities, ecologically sensitive land and even art and rare books.
2. Among the donations not usually included are contributions of time or the purchase of a lottery ticket provided of course that it is a winning ticket.
3. Warning signs that a donation scheme might be fraudulent include: inappropriate pressure to give immediately; overly friendly canvassers who ask personal questions; and a strange combination of call display numbers such as 123-456-7890 or 777-777-7778, which suggest the caller might be attempting to hide his or her number.
4. If you receive a gift for contributing — for example, concert tickets for giving to an orchestra — the value of those tickets must be deducted from the donation.
5. Quebec and Alberta are the best places to make charitable donations, with the highest provincial tax credit rates. Ontario by extension is one of the worst places to make a donation but not by much.
See the Macklin Medical Mission at www.thenancygriffonfund.com and of course on Facebook and Twitter.
Eric J. Macklin MBA, FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE
Macklin Medical Mission [Est 1886]
Chairman
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est 1975]
See us at:
The Web: www.thenancygriffonfund.com
Youtube: Breast Cancer - A New Direction
Facebook: www.facebook.com/eric.macklin
Twitter: http://twitter.com/beowolfe1
http://www.gofundme.com/2q7rfk
Eric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-90737495825246710412013-07-09T10:10:00.005-07:002013-07-09T10:10:52.867-07:00Cancer Cure - Corporate InvitationInvitation to all Corporations
Macklin Medical Mission
****
Breast Cancer - A New Direction
To all our corporate sponsors and friends - the future has finally arrived and the cure for cancer is now here. This highly involved cancer cure for both leukemia and melanoma involves the patient’s own white blood cells combined with the related cancer cells modified the patient’s own T-Cells from the patient’s bone marrow in the lab for a unique one-on-one cure. Yes it is true, no matter what stage the cancer has advanced to. The patient’s modified white blood cells will then recognize and kill cancer cells and any related cancer tumours in the patient’s body. Both now and in the future similar to immunization. Current clinical trials for leukemia and melanoma produced astounding results with 90% of patients 100% clear of cancer cells in 8 to 10 weeks. In some cases the weight of cancer tumours removed exceeded five pounds. But now we need to move beyond the clinical trial stage.
This new approach to cure cancer supported by the Macklin Medical Mission of oncology will be dedicated to the earlier work of Dr. Lionel Macklin of Toronto. With breast cancer now also in clinical trials, we believe that once this becomes the accepted course of treatment within four to five years that now is the time to put away the invasive treatments involving scalpels, and the abrasive treatments of radiology [130 years old] and chemotherapy [80 years old] into the museum.
On behalf of all cancer patients both now and in the future we ask that you please discuss our funding request with your Board of Directors. Now is the time to invest in this new and growing success story. I am sure you know of someone with cancer. This is for them.
This new personalized process of necrosis is so effective that adjoining tissues in the patient’s body are un-affected. Recovery time for cancer patients is now a fraction of what it is today for current “standard” regimes with no side effects and again, at a vastly reduced public health costs.
The Macklin Medical Mission with its 127-year history is embarked on a five year fund raising program to raise $24 million to build the new medical treatment and research center. We urgently ask for your financial support. It is time to give everyone the hope and futures they so richly deserve. Your help is their hope. Please join us today.
Thank you. [Write to us and ask us for our new brochure.]
Yours truly
Eric J. Macklin MBA, FICB, FCSI, PFP, UE
Chairman Macklin Medical - A New Direction
See us at:
Youtube: Breast Cancer - A New Direction
Facebook: www.facebook.com/ericmacklin
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ericmacklin
Eric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-1337153456366204692013-07-09T10:05:00.001-07:002013-07-09T10:05:13.710-07:00Cancer Cure - Its NowMacklin Medical Mission
Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer Culture
Breast cancer culture, or pink ribbon culture, is the set of activities, attitudes, and values that surround and shape breast cancer in public. The dominant values are selflessness, cheerfulness, unity, and optimism. Appearing to have suffered bravely is the passport into the culture.
The woman with breast cancer is given a cultural template that constrains her emotional and social responses into a socially acceptable discourse: She is to use the emotional trauma of being diagnosed with breast cancer and the suffering of extended treatment to transform herself into a stronger, happier and more sensitive person who is grateful for the opportunity to become a better person. Breast cancer thereby becomes a rite of passage rather than a disease. To fit into this mold, the woman with breast cancer needs to normalize and feminize her appearance, and minimize the disruption that her health issues cause anyone else. Anger, sadness and negativity must be silenced.
As with most cultural models, people who conform to the model are given social status, in this case as cancer survivors. Women who reject the model are shunned, punished and shamed.
The culture is criticized for treating adult women like little girls, as evidenced by "baby" toys such as pink teddy bears given to adult women.
The primary purposes or goals of breast cancer culture are to maintain breast cancer's dominance as the preëminent women's health issue, to promote the appearance that society is "doing something" effective about breast cancer, and to sustain and expand the social, political, and financial power of breast cancer activists.
Overemphasis
Compared to other diseases or other cancers, breast cancer receives a disproportionate share of resources and attention. In 2001 MP Ian Gibson, chairman of the House of Commons, England all party group on cancer stated "The treatment has been skewed by the lobbying, there is no doubt about that. Breast cancer sufferers get better treatment in terms of bed spaces, facilities and doctors and nurses." Breast cancer also receives significantly more media coverage than other, equally prevalent cancers, with a study by Prostate Coalition showing 2.6 breast cancer stories for each one covering cancer of the prostate. Its no different in Canada. Ultimately there is a concern that favoring sufferers of breast cancer with disproporionate funding and research on their behalf may well be costing lives elsewhere. Partly because of its relatively high prevalence and long-term survival rates, research is biased towards breast cancer. Some subjects, such as cancer related fatique, have been studied in little except women with breast cancer.
One result of breast cancer's high visibility is that most women significantly overestimate their personal risk of dying from it. Misleading statistics, such as the claim that one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer during their lives—a claim that depends on the patently unrealistic assumption that no woman will die of any other disease before the age of 95 obscure the reality, which is that about ten times as many women will die from heart disease or stroke than from breast cancer.
The emphasis on breast cancer screening may be harming women by subjecting them to unnecessary radiation, biopsies, and surgery. One-third of diagnosed breast cancers might recede on their own. Screening mammography efficiently finds non-life-threatening, asymptomatic breast cancers and pre-cancers, even while overlooking serious cancers.
According to H. Gilbert Welch of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, research on screening mammography has taken the "brain-dead approach that says the best test is the one that finds the most cancers" rather than the one that finds dangerous cancers, which is essentially the same out-dated approach we found when radiology started back in the mid 1880’s in Peoria Illinois where is was stared. After 120 years nothing has changed.
Prognosis
A prognosis is a prediction of outcome and the probability of progression-free survival (PFS) or disease-free survival (DFS). These predictions are based on experience with breast cancer patients with similar classification. A prognosis is an estimate, as patients with the same classification will survive a different amount of time, and classifications are not always precise.
Survival is usually calculated as an average number of months (or years) that 50% of patients survive, or the percentage of patients that are alive after 1, 5, 15, and 20 years. Prognosis is important for treatment decisions because patients with a good prognosis are usually offered less invasive treatments, such as lumpectomy and radiation or hormone therapy, while patients with poor prognosis are usually offered more aggressive treatment, such as more extensive mastectomy and one or more chemotherapy drugs.
In Canada one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and half of those diagnosed will die within five years either after the initial bout of cancer or from the re-occurence of a more malignant form of cancer due to the highly aggressive forms of cancer treatment from radiology or its more designer form of radiology called MRI or chemotherapy with its multifarious list of designer drugs and chemicals all part of and industry wide level of inept laboratories and their forms of “triage”.
Its clearly time to go from the “inept” to the “adept” and jump into the 21st century. Its time to grow up!
Prognostic factors are reflected in the classification scheme for breast cancer including stage, (i.e., tumor size, location, whether disease has spread to lymph nodes and other parts of the body), grade, recurrence of the disease, and the age and health of the patient.
The stage of the breast cancer is the most important component of traditional classification methods of breast cancer, because it has a greater effect on the prognosis than the other considerations. Staging takes into consideration size, local involvement, lymph node status and whether metastatic disease is present. The higher the stage at diagnosis, the poorer the prognosis. The stage is raised by the invasiveness of disease to lymph nodes, chest wall, skin or beyond, and the aggressiveness of the cancer cells. The stage is lowered by the presence of cancer-free zones and close-to-normal cell behaviour (grading). Size is not a factor in staging unless the cancer is invasive. For example, Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) involving the entire breast will still be stage zero and consequently an excellent prognosis with a 10yr disease free survival of about 98%.
The breast cancer grade is assessed by comparison of the breast cancer cells to normal breast cells. The closer to normal the cancer cells are, the slower their growth and the better the prognosis. If cells are not well differentiated, they will appear immature, will divide more rapidly, and will tend to spread. Well differentiated is given a grade of 1, moderate is grade 2, while poor or undifferentiated is given a higher grade of 3 or 4 (depending upon the scale used). The most widely used grading system is the Nottingham scheme; details are provided in the discussion of breast cancer grade.
The presence of estrogen and progesterone receptors in the cancer cell is important in guiding treatment. Those who do not test positive for these specific receptors will not be able to respond to hormone therapy, and this can affect their chance of survival depending upon what treatment options remain, the exact type of the cancer, and how advanced the disease is.
In addition to hormone receptors, there are other cell surface proteins that may affect prognosis and treatment. HER2 status directs the course of treatment. Patients whose cancer cells are positive for HER2 have more aggressive disease and may be treated with the 'targeted therapy', trastuzumab (Herceptin), a monoclonal antibody that targets this protein and improves the prognosis significantly.
Younger women tend to have a poorer prognosis than post-menopausal women due to several factors. Their breasts are active with their cycles, they may be nursing infants, and may be unaware of changes in their breasts. Therefore, younger women are usually at a more advanced stage when diagnosed. There may also be biologic factors contributing to a higher risk of disease recurrence for younger women with breast cancer.
United States and Canada
The lifetime risk for breast cancer in Canada is usually given as about 1 in 8 (12%) of women by age 95, with a 1 in 35 (3%) chance of dying from breast cancer. Sadly its “only” 1 in 12 in the United States. Clearly with the aging popluations in both countries Canada is falling behind due to the inept nature of research in Canada. With the nearly half billion being raised in Canada from a number of sources this is a very bad return on their investment.
In reality this is about 5%. This calculation assumes that all women live to at least age 95, except for those who die from breast cancer before age 95. Recent work, using real-world numbers, indicate that the actual risk is probably less than half the theoretical risk.
The United States has the highest annual incidence rates of breast cancer in the world; 128.6 per 100,000 in whites and 112.6 per 100,000 among African Americans. It is the second-most common cancer (after skin cancer) and the second-most common cause of cancer death (after lung cancer). In 2007, breast cancer was expected to cause 40,910 deaths in the US (7% of cancer deaths; almost 2% of all deaths). This figure includes 450-500 annual deaths among men out of 2000 cancer cases.
In the US, both incidence and death rates for breast cancer have been declining in the last few years in Native Americans and Alaskan Natives. Nevertheless, a US study conducted in 2005 indicated that breast cancer remains the most feared disease, even though heart disease is a much more common cause of death among women. Many doctors say that women exaggerate their risk of breast cancer.
There are those who can and do and unfortunately in the “highly funded cancer industry” in both Canada and the United States there are those who can’t and simply don’t know how - and are collecting huge salaries and write-off for equipment with a technology dating from either the mid 1880’s or 1940’s. The recipes and concoctions have changed ever so little but the results are dismal.
After rising for nearly three decades, the mortality due to cancer in its many and varied forms fell in Canada and most of its peer countries in the 1990’s. The number has continued to decrease but not as quickly in Canada and many other countries. In 1997 for example the U.S. and Canada experineced an equal number of deaths due to cancer, at 178 per annum per 100,000 patients reported. But since then the U.S. rate of mortality has since decreased much more quickly than in Canada, which for Canada is indicated in large part to a mis-direction in funding a research effort resulting in a considerable gap between Canada and the U.S. mortality rate. Due to the huge level of funding someone is benefiting but not the patients.
Considering that both the U.S. and Canada have slipped from the top to the 8th and 12th position behind many other smaller countires with considerable less resources and GDP, it clearly indicates again a mis-direction of funding a resources even with an aging population. Cancer is cancer so combined with the highly abrasive nature of radiology and chemotherapy on a middle aged body leaving it open to a recurrence of cancer and older body of patients will simply be left further behind and with fewer options.
Now we have the inept leading the inept within a self regulating “cancer industry”. If one doesn’t like that - then the numbers prove the point. What is – is! And death is still death.
Clearly, what is needed in Canada is a comprehensive and integrated cancer control strategy outside of the control of the “cancer industry” to set and pursue a strategic methodology of promotion, prevention and screening of specific targets to not only get us back on track – while at the same time reviewing new cancer treatments – not just the reworking again and again two very olde sytems as we currently are – buty especially that of stem cell research and working with the body’s own defensive system – the white blood cel;s modified with “adepts” – re-introducing them back into the body in a new highly successful treatment to bring about the necrosis of cancer cells and tumours now under going very successful clincial trials which started in March of 2011 and being monitored by the Macklin Medical Mission in Canada.
Your choice now is very simple – both you the private citizen and the private corporation can decide who and what to fund. The ethics are also simple – choose “inept” or “adept”.
Thank you.
This is a private sector initiative. The Government will catch up only when it decides to do so. They are always late to the table.
Eric J. Macklin MBA, FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE
Macklin Medical Mission [Est 1886]
Chairman
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est 1975]
See us at:
Youtube: Breast Cancer - A New Direction
Facebook: www.facebook.com/ericmacklin
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ericmacklin
Eric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-61598419206685993732013-05-01T11:28:00.001-07:002013-05-01T11:28:29.244-07:00Cure for Cancer - Macklin Medical MissionCure for Cancer
Macklin Medical Mission on Facebook
As in all things there eventually comes a time when the cure for cancer arrives and there are those people who yell and scream that it has happened.
However, and there is always a “however” - those most affected both the patients and those especially treating patients with outdated radiology which is 130 years old and somewhat refined in today’s world with the ever present lead shields and the smell of radiological burns at the targeted and tattooed areas of the body – usually smells like bacon; and of course the chemotherapy applied with such relish by everyone called an “oncologist” these days with the constantly redux in recipes provided by the chemical companies and their research labs which are costing the north American cancer field $2.6 trillion dollars a year.
You can safely imagine the push back by these chemical companies and the companies providing x-ray machines for the ever present radiology treatments combined which cause so much havox to younger patients and the elderly – especially those with weak livers to start with and who die early enough without being eased on their way.
Well the cure to cancer is here with the use of white blood cells from the patient’s body and T-Cells from the patient’s bone marrow lined up as it were in a open pitri-dish with a biopsy of the patient’s cancer for a “little one-on-one education” and re-injected back into the patient’s body effect the cancer
to effect the cancer cure.
A cure long known to Dr. Lionel Macklin a graduate of the University of Toronto with the final step being the isolation and extraction of T-Cells.
We now have the cure to leukemia and melanoma currently in refinement in clinical trials still and breast cancer not that far behind.
For those of you who wish to support this effort we invite you to the Facebook page of the Macklin Medical Mission – all except of course the chemical companies and those producing radiology machines.
Your choice now is very simple – this is a defining moment - both you the private citizen and the private corporation can decide who and what to fund. The ethics are also simple – choose “inept” or “adept”. The larger labs have failed us – thought they can replicate us; the larger cancer raising programs have failed because they failed to finance the smaller labs. It’s the story of the small Dr. Banting lab which discovered insulin so many years ago all over again. But now you know, thankfully to the internet.
This is a private sector initiative. The Government will catch up only when it decides to do so. They are always late to the table. It’s your choice now, whether this takes three years, whether it takes four years, whether it takes five years; and how many more have to die from cancer when they don’t have to. And due to current financial restrictions you will not find this arriving at your front door as a solicitation letter. This is it. Like everything else we do, we are only using modern technology.
Thank you.
Your financial support would be sincerely appreciated. Thank you.
Eric J. Macklin MBA, FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE
Director
Macklin Medical Mission [Est. 1886]
Chairman
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est. 1975]
Canada
YouTube: Macklin Medical Mission – Cancer Cure
http://www.gofundme.com/2q7rfk
Eric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-34615076887617021502013-03-15T13:14:00.002-07:002013-03-15T13:14:55.496-07:00Cancer Cure - Macklin Medical Mission on FacebookMacklin Medical Mission
Facebook – Cancer Cure
As in all things there eventually comes a time when the cure for cancer arrives and there are those people who yell and scream that it has happened.
However, and there is always a “however” - those most affected both the patients and those especially treating patients with outdated radiology which is 130 years old and somewhat refined in today’s world with the ever present lead shields and the smell of radiological burns at the targeted and tattooed areas of the body – usually smells like bacon; and of course the chemotherapy applied with such relish by everyone called an “oncologist” these days with the constantly redux in recipes provided by the chemical companies and their research labs which are costing the north American cancer field $2.6 trillion dollars a year.
You can safely imagine the push back by these chemical companies and the companies providing x-ray machines for the ever present radiology treatments combined which cause so much havox to younger patients and the elderly – especially those with weak livers to start with and who die early enough without being eased on their way.
Well the cure to cancer is here with the use of white blood cells from the patient’s body and T-Cells from the patient’s bone marrow lined up as it were in a open pitri-dish with a biopsy of the patient’s cancer for a “little one-on-one education” and re-injected back into the patient’s body effect the cancer
to effect the cancer cure.
A cure long known to Dr. Lionel Macklin a graduate of the University of Toronto with the final step being the isolation and extraction of T-Cells.
We now have the cure to leukemia and melanoma currently in refinement in clinical trials still and breast cancer not that far behind.
For those of you who wish to support this effort we invite you to the Facebook page of the Macklin Medical Mission – all except of course the chemical companies and those producing radiology machines.
Your choice now is very simple – this is a defining moment - both you the private citizen and the private corporation can decide who and what to fund. The ethics are also simple – choose “inept” or “adept”. The larger labs have failed us – thought they can replicate us; the larger cancer raising programs have failed because they failed to finance the smaller labs. It’s the story of the small Dr. Banting lab which discovered insulin so many years ago all over again. But now you know, thankfully to the internet.
This is a private sector initiative. The Government will catch up only when it decides to do so. They are always late to the table. It’s your choice now, whether this takes three years, whether it takes four years, whether it takes five years; and how many more have to die from cancer when they don’t have to. And due to current financial restrictions you will not find this arriving at your front door as a solicitation letter. This is it. Like everything else we do, we are only using modern technology.
Thank you.
Your financial support would be sincerely appreciated. Thank you.
Eric J. Macklin MBA, FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE
Director
Macklin Medical Mission [Est. 1886]
Chairman
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est. 1975]
Canada
YouTube: Macklin Medical Mission – Cancer Cure
Eric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-21832831902470856722013-03-15T10:19:00.003-07:002013-03-15T10:19:52.381-07:00The Cure to Cancer is Here NowMacklin Medical Mission
Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer Culture
Breast cancer culture, or pink ribbon culture, is the set of activities, attitudes, and values that surround and shape breast cancer in public. The dominant values are selflessness, cheerfulness, unity, and optimism. Appearing to have suffered bravely is the passport into the culture.
The woman with breast cancer is given a cultural template that constrains her emotional and social responses into a socially acceptable discourse: She is to use the emotional trauma of being diagnosed with breast cancer and the suffering of extended treatment to transform herself into a stronger, happier and more sensitive person who is grateful for the opportunity to become a better person. Breast cancer thereby becomes a rite of passage rather than a disease. To fit into this mold, the woman with breast cancer needs to normalize and feminize her appearance, and minimize the disruption that her health issues cause anyone else. Anger, sadness and negativity must be silenced.
As with most cultural models, people who conform to the model are given social status, in this case as cancer survivors. Women who reject the model are shunned, punished and shamed.
The culture is criticized for treating adult women like little girls, as evidenced by "baby" toys such as pink teddy bears given to adult women.
The primary purposes or goals of breast cancer culture are to maintain breast cancer's dominance as the preëminent women's health issue, to promote the appearance that society is "doing something" effective about breast cancer, and to sustain and expand the social, political, and financial power of breast cancer activists.
Overemphasis
Compared to other diseases or other cancers, breast cancer receives a disproportionate share of resources and attention. In 2001 MP Ian Gibson, chairman of the House of Commons, England all party group on cancer stated "The treatment has been skewed by the lobbying, there is no doubt about that. Breast cancer sufferers get better treatment in terms of bed spaces, facilities and doctors and nurses." Breast cancer also receives significantly more media coverage than other, equally prevalent cancers, with a study by Prostate Coalition showing 2.6 breast cancer stories for each one covering cancer of the prostate. Its no different in Canada. Ultimately there is a concern that favoring sufferers of breast cancer with disproporionate funding and research on their behalf may well be costing lives elsewhere. Partly because of its relatively high prevalence and long-term survival rates, research is biased towards breast cancer. Some subjects, such as cancer related fatique, have been studied in little except women with breast cancer.
One result of breast cancer's high visibility is that most women significantly overestimate their personal risk of dying from it. Misleading statistics, such as the claim that one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer during their lives—a claim that depends on the patently unrealistic assumption that no woman will die of any other disease before the age of 95 obscure the reality, which is that about ten times as many women will die from heart disease or stroke than from breast cancer.
The emphasis on breast cancer screening may be harming women by subjecting them to unnecessary radiation, biopsies, and surgery. One-third of diagnosed breast cancers might recede on their own. Screening mammography efficiently finds non-life-threatening, asymptomatic breast cancers and pre-cancers, even while overlooking serious cancers.
According to H. Gilbert Welch of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, research on screening mammography has taken the "brain-dead approach that says the best test is the one that finds the most cancers" rather than the one that finds dangerous cancers, which is essentially the same out-dated approach we found when radiology started back in the mid 1880’s in Peoria Illinois where is was stared. After 120 years nothing has changed.
Prognosis
A prognosis is a prediction of outcome and the probability of progression-free survival (PFS) or disease-free survival (DFS). These predictions are based on experience with breast cancer patients with similar classification. A prognosis is an estimate, as patients with the same classification will survive a different amount of time, and classifications are not always precise.
Survival is usually calculated as an average number of months (or years) that 50% of patients survive, or the percentage of patients that are alive after 1, 5, 15, and 20 years. Prognosis is important for treatment decisions because patients with a good prognosis are usually offered less invasive treatments, such as lumpectomy and radiation or hormone therapy, while patients with poor prognosis are usually offered more aggressive treatment, such as more extensive mastectomy and one or more chemotherapy drugs.
In Canada one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and half of those diagnosed will die within five years either after the initial bout of cancer or from the re-occurence of a more malignant form of cancer due to the highly aggressive forms of cancer treatment from radiology or its more designer form of radiology called MRI or chemotherapy with its multifarious list of designer drugs and chemicals all part of and industry wide level of inept laboratories and their forms of “triage”.
Its clearly time to go from the “inept” to the “adept” and jump into the 21st century. Its time to grow up!
Prognostic factors are reflected in the classification scheme for breast cancer including stage, (i.e., tumor size, location, whether disease has spread to lymph nodes and other parts of the body), grade, recurrence of the disease, and the age and health of the patient.
The stage of the breast cancer is the most important component of traditional classification methods of breast cancer, because it has a greater effect on the prognosis than the other considerations. Staging takes into consideration size, local involvement, lymph node status and whether metastatic disease is present. The higher the stage at diagnosis, the poorer the prognosis. The stage is raised by the invasiveness of disease to lymph nodes, chest wall, skin or beyond, and the aggressiveness of the cancer cells. The stage is lowered by the presence of cancer-free zones and close-to-normal cell behaviour (grading). Size is not a factor in staging unless the cancer is invasive. For example, Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) involving the entire breast will still be stage zero and consequently an excellent prognosis with a 10yr disease free survival of about 98%.
The breast cancer grade is assessed by comparison of the breast cancer cells to normal breast cells. The closer to normal the cancer cells are, the slower their growth and the better the prognosis. If cells are not well differentiated, they will appear immature, will divide more rapidly, and will tend to spread. Well differentiated is given a grade of 1, moderate is grade 2, while poor or undifferentiated is given a higher grade of 3 or 4 (depending upon the scale used). The most widely used grading system is the Nottingham scheme; details are provided in the discussion of breast cancer grade..
The presence of estrogen and progesterone receptors in the cancer cell is important in guiding treatment. Those who do not test positive for these specific receptors will not be able to respond to hormone therapy, and this can affect their chance of survival depending upon what treatment options remain, the exact type of the cancer, and how advanced the disease is.
In addition to hormone receptors, there are other cell surface proteins that may affect prognosis and treatment. HER2 status directs the course of treatment. Patients whose cancer cells are positive for HER2 have more aggressive disease and may be treated with the 'targeted therapy', trastuzumab (Herceptin), a monoclonal antibody that targets this protein and improves the prognosis significantly.
Younger women tend to have a poorer prognosis than post-menopausal women due to several factors. Their breasts are active with their cycles, they may be nursing infants, and may be unaware of changes in their breasts. Therefore, younger women are usually at a more advanced stage when diagnosed. There may also be biologic factors contributing to a higher risk of disease recurrence for younger women with breast cancer.
United States and Canada
The lifetime risk for breast cancer in Canada is usually given as about 1 in 8 (12%) of women by age 95, with a 1 in 35 (3%) chance of dying from breast cancer. Sadly its “only” 1 in 12 in the United States. Clearly with the aging popluations in both countries Canada is falling behind due to the inept nature of research in Canada. With the nearly half billion being raised in Canada from a number of sources this is a very bad return on their investment.
In reality this is about 5%. This calculation assumes that all women live to at least age 95, except for those who die from breast cancer before age 95. Recent work, using real-world numbers, indicate that the actual risk is probably less than half the theoretical risk.
The United States has the highest annual incidence rates of breast cancer in the world; 128.6 per 100,000 in whites and 112.6 per 100,000 among African Americans. It is the second-most common cancer (after skin cancer) and the second-most common cause of cancer death (after lung cancer). In 2007, breast cancer was expected to cause 40,910 deaths in the US (7% of cancer deaths; almost 2% of all deaths). This figure includes 450-500 annual deaths among men out of 2000 cancer cases.
In the US, both incidence and death rates for breast cancer have been declining in the last few years in Native Americans and Alaskan Natives. Nevertheless, a US study conducted in 2005 indicated that breast cancer remains the most feared disease, even though heart disease is a much more common cause of death among women. Many doctors say that women exaggerate their risk of breast cancer.
There are those who can and do and unfortunately in the “highly funded cancer industry” in both Canada and the United States there are those who can’t and simply don’t know how - and are collecting huge salaries and write-off for equipment with a technology dating from either the mid 1880’s or 1940’s. The recipes and concoctions have changed ever so little but the results are dismal.
After rising for nearly three decades, the mortality due to cancer in its many and varied forms fell in Canada and most of its peer countries in the 1990’s. The number has continued to decrease but not as quickly in Canada and many other countries. In 1997 for example the U.S. and Canada experineced an equal number of deaths due to cancer, at 178 per annum per 100,000 patients reported. But since then the U.S. rate of mortality has since decreased much more quickly than in Canada, which for Canada is indicated in large part to a mis-direction in funding a research effort resulting in a considerable gap between Canada and the U.S. mortality rate. Due to the huge level of funding someone is benefiting but not the patients.
Considering that both the U.S. and Canada have slipped from the top to the 8th and 12th position behind many other smaller countires with considerable less resources and GDP, it clearly indicates again a mis-direction of funding a resources even with an aging population. Cancer is cancer so combined with the highly abrasive nature of radiology and chemotherapy on a middle aged body leaving it open to a recurrence of cancer and older body of patients will simply be left further behind and with fewer options.
Now we have the inept leading the inept within a self regulating “cancer industry”. If one doesn’t like that - then the numbers prove the point. What is – is! And death is still death.
Clearly, what is needed in Canada is a comprehensive and integrated cancer control strategy outside of the control of the “cancer industry” to set and pursue a strategic methodology of promotion, prevention and screening of specific targets to not only get us back on track – while at the same time reviewing new cancer treatments – not just the reworking again and again two very olde sytems as we currently are – buty especially that of stem cell research and working with the body’s own defensive system – the white blood cel;s modified with “adepts” – re-introducing them back into the body in a new highly successful treatment to bring about the necrosis of cancer cells and tumours now under going very successful clincial trials which started in March of 2011 and being monitored by the Macklin Medical Mission in Canada.
Your choice now is very simple – both you the private citizen and the private corporation can decide who and what to fund. The ethics are also simple – choose “inept” or “adept”.
Thank you.
This is a private sector initiative. The Government will catch up only when it decides to do so. They are always late to the table.
Eric J. Macklin B.Com., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE
Macklin Medical Mission [Est 1886]
Chairman
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est 1975]
Canada
YouTube: Macklin Medical Mission – Cancer Cure
Eric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-4652921668224532212012-06-02T16:15:00.000-07:002012-06-02T16:15:04.311-07:00Macklin Medical Mission - The PD-! Story Continues<b>Macklin Medical Mission</b>
[New drug helps body’s Defence system Fight Cancer]
<b>New England Journal of Medicine
</b>Following on the very important path-finder work of <b>Dr. Carl June </b>at the University of Pennsylvania Oncology Clinic at the Abramson Oncology Research facility in Philadelphia and their published finding in the The New England Journal of Medicine on “translational white blood cellular therapy” in May of 2011 we now have the similar work being done by Dr. Suzan Topalian of the John Hopkins University in Baltimore Maryland -
1. One of the great frustrations for researchers in the war on cancer is that the body’s own defence system does not do a better job fighting the disease. Tumours, it turns out, have a molecular shield that repels attacks from the immune system.
Now, a new study says, an experimental drug is showing promise in disabling that shield, unleashing the immune system and causing shrinkage of some lung, skin and kidney cancers that had defied treatment with existing drugs.
“We are seeing responses in heavily treated patients — three different cancers, one drug,” Dr. Suzanne Topalian, a melanoma specialist at Johns Hopkins University and lead investigator in the study, said in an interview. “This is a group of patients whose life expectancy was measured in a few months.”
The results are from an early clinical trial, and it is not clear whether the drug, developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, will actually help people live longer. But Topalian said she was optimistic because when tumours did shrink, they often did not grow back again for more than a year.
The study was discussed Friday at a news conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and is being published online by the New England Journal of Medicine.
The drug, which now goes by the unwieldy code name of BMS-936558, blocks a protein called PD-1. Such PD-1 inhibitors “could be the most exciting clinical and commercial opportunity in oncology,” analysts at Leerink Swann wrote last month. That is partly because such drugs might be able to treat a variety of cancers [including tumours found in breast cancers].
Bristol-Myers said it intended to begin more clinical trials later this year and early next year aimed at winning approval of the drug to treat non-small-cell lung cancer, kidney cancer and melanoma, which is a deadly skin cancer.
Others pursuing drugs that block the action of PD-1 include Merck; the Genentech unit of Roche; Glaxo Smith Kline, working with a small Maryland company called Amplimmune; and Teva working with an Israeli biotech company, CureTech.
The early trial, paid for in part by Bristol-Myers, involved 296 patients with various advanced cancers.
Tumours shrank significantly in 18 percent of the lung cancer patients, 28 percent of the melanoma patients and 27 percent of those with kidney cancer. Those rates compare favourably with some existing drugs, according to Leerink Swann.
But the drug did not appear to work for a small number of patients with prostate or colon cancer. And larger studies will be needed to determine whether freeing the immune system leads to side effects, like attacks on parts of the body besides the tumour.
In terms of side effects, about 14 percent of the patients experienced a severe side effect and three patients died from inflammation of the lung that was apparently tied to the drug.
Still, the results are an improvement to the approach of harnessing the immune system to fight cancer, a field that has had a history of failures.
The process works like this - PD-1, which stands for programmed death 1, is a protein on the surface of activated T cells, the warriors of the immune system [carried by white blood cells]. If another molecule, called PD-L1, binds to PD-1, the T cell dies or becomes docile. This is apparently a way that the body regulates the immune system, to avoid an overreaction.
But many cancer cells make PD-L1, which allows them to disarm the T cells just as they have been “informed by the body of an invading cell” and are coming to attack the tumour. The Bristol drug is a monoclonal antibody that blocks PD-1 from binding to PD-L1.
Bristol-Myers won approval last year for a drug that removes a different brake on the immune system. That drug, Yervoy, can prolong the lives of people with melanoma [skin cancer], but the unleashed immune system can also lead to severe side effects, like colitis
PD-1 blockers appear to free up the immune system only around the tumour, rather than more generally.
That could mean that the PD-1 will have “fewer side effects and greater anti-tumour activity,” than drugs like Yervoy, Dr. Antoni Ribas, a melanoma specialist at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an editorial being published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
<b>An Important Note</b>: There is preliminary evidence that PD-1 blockers will not work in people whose tumours do not make PD-L1, as determined by studying a biopsy sample. That might allow the drug to be used only for patients most likely to benefit, researchers said.
- - - - - -
2. A type of drug that helps the body's immune system attack tumours is showing promise. In early clinical trials involving several hundred patients with various kinds of advanced cancer, up to one-quarter of those who received the treatment saw their tumours shrink, and some are still alive more than a year later.
The results are the latest good news for so-called immunotherapy treatments that work by overcoming a tumour's ability to evade the immune system. One way cancer cells escape destruction is by producing a protein on their surface, known as programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), that locks onto a protein called PD-1 on T cells, a type of immune cell. When the two connect, that prevents T cells from detecting the tumour and signalling the immune system to attack. Researchers have hypothesized that giving people with tumours an antibody (a protein) that blocks either PD-1 or PD-L1 would keep the proteins from engaging and switching off T cells—and a small initial clinical trial of an anti-PD-1 drug confirmed that this strategy holds promise for treating cancer.
So do two larger, multi-center studies of this approach, which are being presented today at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago. When a group of 296 patients with five types of advanced cancer received an infusion of an antibody targeting PD-1 every 2 weeks, tumours shrank in 14 of 76 lung cancer patients, 26 of 94 melanoma patients, and 9 of 33 kidney cancer patients—an 18% to 28% response rate. Many patients have responded to the drug for a year or longer. "These are very encouraging signals," says melanoma researcher Suzanne Topalian of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, a leader of the multi-center study.
In a separate study at Hopkins and elsewhere in which 207 cancer patients received an antibody that blocks PD-L1, 10% to 17% of those with one of three types of cancer have responded, and some patients have responded for at least a year.
As with most early drug studies, the trials were predominantly designed to test safety; more studies are needed to show whether those receiving the antibodies live longer than they would on conventional treatments. (Topalian says the 1-year survival results are encouraging, however. In other studies, advanced melanoma patients on standard treatment lived for 6 to 7 months on average.) And the drugs, both made by Bristol-Myers Squibb, can result in severe side effects: The anti-PD-1 drug caused three deaths from lung inflammation.
Still, the fact that both drugs seem to have a clinical impact "says that this combined [PD-1/PD-L1] pathway is important as a target for cancer therapy," Topalian says. When researchers tested tumour samples from 42 of the patients receiving anti-PD-1, nine of 25 who responded had PD-L1 on their tumours, while none of those lacking PD-L1 on their cancer cells responded. That means a test for PD-L1 could potentially tell doctors which patients should get the drug, much as physicians now routinely test breast cancers to see if they should receive various hormone therapies.
The two trials, whose results are also reported online today in The New England Journal of Medicine, have "broken the ceiling" of a 10% to 15% response rate for a similar strategy that targets a T-cell protein called CTLA-4, says oncologist Antoni Ribas of the University of California, Los Angeles, who wrote an accompanying commentary in the journal. A CTLA-4-blocking antibody called ipilimumab was approved for melanoma treatment by U.S. regulators last year. But it seems to cause more side effects than anti-PD-1 drugs, probably because CTLA-4 is present on T cells in more tissues of the body.
"The biggest feature of all these approaches is that it engages [an immune] memory response, so responses tend to be durable," says Ribas. Still, one significant remaining challenge is to get more patients to respond to the growing number of these immuno-therapy drugs. One way to do that may be to combine them with other treatments, Topalian says.
- - - - - - - - -
Clearly, what is needed in Canada is a comprehensive and integrated cancer control strategy outside of the control of the “cancer industry” to set and pursue a strategic methodology of promotion, prevention and screening of specific targets to not only get us back on track – while at the same time reviewing new cancer treatments – not just the reworking again and again two very olde sytems as we currently are – buty especially that of stem cell research and working with the body’s own defensive system – the white blood cel;s modified with “adepts” – re-introducing them back into the body in a new highly successful treatment to bring about the necrosis of cancer cells and tumours now under going very successful clincial trials which started in March of 2011 and being monitored by the Macklin Medical Mission in Canada.
Your choice now is very simple – both you the private citizen, and the private corporation can decide on who and what to fund. We at the <b>Macklin Medical Mission </b>choose to raise funds for the support of bio-research dealing with T-Cells combined with white blood cells for the translational therapies now available and being developed to fight cancer rather than the harash and caustic methods used in archaic treatments found in radiology and chemotherapy with all their side effects especially for children and the elderly.The ethics are also simple – choose “inept” or “adept”. <b>Thank you.</b>
Please note that this is a private sector initiative. Like so many research initiatives, the Government will catch up only when it decides to do so. They are always late to the table and cancer patients are dying daily because of it. Thank you for your financial support.
<b>Eric J. Macklin B.Com., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE
The Macklin Medical Mission [Est 1886]
Chairman
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est 1975]
Canada
YouTube: Macklin Medical Mission – Cancer Cure
</b>Eric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-28188094624314760952012-05-20T11:30:00.001-07:002012-05-20T11:30:37.799-07:00Macklin Medical Mission - The CRA<b>Macklin Medical Mission
Children’s Oncology Center
</b>
As seen in our previous Blogs regarding the Macklin Medical Mission this is a very old medical mission. It was created long before income tax and hence long before the Canadian income tax department and certainly long before income tax receipts were thought of for donations. And yet funds were raised and some very important tasks were completed and long before some very interesting doctors had to ask for permission to raise funds to do so. Important paediatric work was simply done especially in the field of children’s oncology.
No brochures were made, no vast media campaigns were conducted and certainly no lotteries were instituted to raise funds for cancer research such as they are in Canada were 80% of all funds raised go to paying for print media, electronic media, glorious prizes such as cottages in Muskoka people couldn’t afford the municipal taxes on and hugely expensive cars and homes on Oakville which for 90% of folks couldn’t afford to insure let alone keep up. Yet this is the sad state of affairs for raising funds in Canada for cancer research. And of course there are the children and the elderly who have the toughest time of all due to their age and the awful effects of radiology, 135 years old and chemotherapy, which is 75 years old.
The only people making the real money on the current state of fund raising for cancer in Canada are the executives at various media organizations and companies supplying the hugely expensive pieces of equipment and chemicals not to mention the six figures salaries paid to hospital executives and fund raisers for various cancer societies. And then there are the children.
The Macklin Medical Mission, which was established in 1886, was originally funded by wealthy donors, doctors who cared, university societies and alumni and various medical missionaries in Canada, England and the United States. And no tax receipts were issued. Simply funds collected. And then there are the children.
The Macklin Medical Mission is part of the Nancy-Griffon Fund Inc. The latter was an interest that several of the founding Directors had in two old historical craft – the GRIFFON and the NANCY. It also helped that Dr. Daisy Macklin was known as Griff and Dr. Christine Macklin was also known as Nancy – and they all loved to fish and vacation in Wasaga Beach. The Nancy-Griffon Fund Inc also known as the Foundation issues tax receipts for anything to do with Canadian marine heritage.
In dealing with the Canada Revenue Agency [CSA] they want the Macklin Medical Mission to go the expense of developing printed matter such as printed brochures and printed pamphlets for the project.
This is fine for mail outs to individuals. However, in developing a $24 million dollar fund raising objective and considering the laws around charitable giving in Canada for individuals this is hardly worth the effort, since it is already in electronic form right here on the Internet. Hard copy brochures and the like are vastly out of date, especially when the CSA wants all that prior to giving the Macklin Medical Mission permission is issue receipts for income tax purposes.
With the current set-up for fund raising in Canada for a whole host of causes, including the “industry of raising funds for cancer in Canada” which are charitable by law and in keeping with tax law as it currently stands, lotteries are the way to go. Not us. We are in the 21st century. Going to the expense of hard copy material considering the pace of change in cancer research would only bring us into that milieu of excessive costs in raising funds for cancer such as the ubiquitous hospital lotteries and the like in Canada.
All reference material for the Macklin Medical Mission will be found on the Internet and on our website for only those sponsors capable of reading the electronic media including Facebook for the Macklin Medical Mission. For those in the public domain who can not read the various forms of electronic media, it would be safe to say that their support of the Macklin Medical Mission would simply not be there in any meaningful fashion considering the complexity of the issues at hand.
Once the Macklin Medical Mission, and the Children’s Oncology Group is up and running then dealing with those who are in need care would of course affect the whole spectrum of the public.
Like cancer research which is global in nature, as is the affliction, those centers of excellence need our financial support. The team lead by Dr. Carl H. June at the Abramson Cancer Research Center at the University of Pennsylvania is one such center and one we have chosen to support, in much the same way that American companies here in Canada support some of our Canadian projects over the years. This is also in line with our earlier work internationally.
For current news around clinical trials and the process of “translational white blood cell therapy for cancer” and the ultimate cure of leukemia as the first stage we refer you to: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/05/18/3200041/philipsburg-girl-on-road-to-recovery.html#storylink=omni_popular%23wgt=pop
<b>Note</b> - that is did not turn up on your door step in any form of print media. Facebook does not allow for room covering this topic other than a “heads-up” and the Nancy-Griffon Fund Inc website which is for basic information only.
Your choice now is very simple – both for you as the private citizen and the private corporation can decide who and what to fund. The ethics are also simple – choose “cure” over “treatment”.
This is a private sector initiative. The Government will catch up only when it decides to do so. They are always late to the table. We are not being critical, just realistic. Thank you.
Eric J. Macklin B.Com., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE
Macklin Medical Mission [Est 1886]
Chairman
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est 1975]
Canada
YouTube: Macklin Medical Mission – Cancer CureEric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-80028553084977541342012-01-10T16:45:00.000-08:002012-01-10T16:45:51.708-08:00Macklin Medical Mission - Cancer Vanishes Without Treatment (2)Cancers Can Vanish Without Treatment, but How?<br />
[or, Cancer Cured by High IQ White Blood Cells]<br />
<br />
<br />
Call it the arrow of cancer. Like the arrow of time, it was supposed to point in one direction. Cancers grew and worsened. [But not for everyone – why - Our little Friends – The Mighty White Blood Cells.<br />
<br />
But as a paper in The Journal of the American Medical Association noted last week, data from more than two decades of screening for breast and prostate cancer call that view into question. Besides finding <br />
tumours that would be lethal if left untreated, screening appears to be finding many small tumours that would not be a problem if they were left alone, undiscovered by screening. They were destined to stop growing on their own or shrink, or even, at least in the case of some breast cancers, disappear. [For some of us White blood cells – long known as the body’s army cells dealt with them in a timely fashion]<br />
<br />
“The old view is that cancer is a linear process,” said Dr. Barnett Kramer, associate director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health. “A cell acquired a mutation, and little by little it acquired more and more mutations. Mutations are not supposed to revert spontaneously.”<br />
<br />
So, Dr. Kramer said, the image was “an arrow that moved in one direction.” But now, he added, it is becoming increasingly clear that cancers require more than mutations to progress. They need the cooperation of surrounding cells and even, he said, “the whole organism, the person,” whose immune system or hormone levels, for example, can squelch or fuel a tumour.<br />
Cancer, Dr. Kramer said, is a dynamic [two way process] process. <br />
<br />
It was a view that was hard for some [indeed many] cancer doctors and researchers to accept. But some of the skeptics have changed their minds and decided that, contrary as it seems to everything they had thought, cancers can disappear on their own. [Hence in terms of over all survival for the human race, cancer is simply incapable of killing us all off – as white blood cells adapted to the presence of cancerous cells step forward for the most of us - as we shall see]<br />
<br />
“At the end of the day, I’m not sure how certain I am about this, but I do believe it,” said Dr. Robert M. Kaplan, the chairman of the department of health services at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Los Angeles, adding, “The weight of the evidence suggests that there is reason to believe.”<br />
<br />
Disappearing tumours are well known in testicular cancer. Dr. Jonathan Epstein at Johns Hopkins says it does not happen often, but it happens.<br />
A young man may have a lump in his testicle, but when doctors remove the organ all they find is a big scar. The tumour that was there is gone. Or, they see a large scar and a tiny tumour because more than 95 percent of the tumour had disappeared [destroyed by white blood cells which identified cancer cells as non-normal cells as they are supposed to, and simply removed as waste by the body’s own system] on its own by the time the testicle was removed. <br />
<br />
Or a young man will show up with a big tumour near his kidney. Doctors realize that it started somewhere else, so they look for its origin. Then they discover a scar in the man’s testicle, the only remnant of the original cancer because no tumour is left. <br />
<br />
Testicular cancer is unusual; most others do not disappear. But there is growing evidence that cancers can go backward or stop, and researchers are being forced to reassess their notions of what cancer is and how it develops.<br />
<br />
Of course, cancers do not routinely go away, and no one is suggesting that patients avoid treatment because of such occasional occurrences. <br />
“Biologically, it is a rare phenomenon to have an advanced cancer go into remission,” said Dr. Martin Gleave, a professor of urology at the University of British Columbia.<br />
<br />
But knowing more about how tumours develop and sometimes reverse course might help doctors decide which tumours can be left alone and which need to be treated, something that is now not known in most cases. <br />
Cancer cells and pre-cancerous cells are so common that nearly everyone by middle age or old age is riddled with them, said Thea Tlsty, a professor of pathology at the University of California, San Francisco. That was discovered in autopsy studies of people who died of other causes, with no idea that they had cancer cells or pre-cancerous cells. They did not have large tumours or symptoms of cancer. “The really interesting question,” Dr. Tlsty said, “is not so much why do we get cancer as why don’t we get cancer?” [For a great many of us white blood cells adapt at the presence of pre-cancerous cells and take the necessary remedial action before things get out of hand.]<br />
<br />
The earlier a cell is in its path toward an aggressive cancer, researchers say, the more likely it is to reverse course [with the presence of adaptive white blood cells]. So, for example, cells that are early precursors of cervical cancer are likely to revert. One study found that 60 percent of pre-cancerous cervical cells, found with Pap tests, revert to normal within a year; 90 percent revert within three years. <br />
<br />
[For those who don’t and cancer takes hold, their white blood cells can be with withdrawn and in a lab “adapted” or “translated” with “cancer-like” cells with the help of T-cells and then re-introduced back into the host body and “off they go” killing all cancerous material and tumours within a matter of weeks. This process is currently in clinical trials as we speak and works on cancer patients no matter what stage the cancer is in.]<br />
<br />
And the dynamic process of cancer development appears to be the reason that screening for breast cancer or prostate cancer finds huge numbers of early cancers without a corresponding decline in late stage cancers.<br />
<br />
If every one of those early cancers were destined to turn into an advanced cancer, then the total number of cancers should be the same after screening is introduced, but the increase in early cancers should be balanced by a decrease in advanced cancers. [Hence the presence of adapted white blood cells]<br />
<br />
That has not happened with screening for breast and prostate cancer. So the hypothesis is that many early cancers go nowhere [and not on their own]. And, as with breast cancer, there is indirect evidence [actually very direct and very significant evidence] that some actually disappear. [There is only one mechanism that the body has that can do this and this is the white blood cell hard at work.]<br />
<br />
It is harder to document disappearing prostate cancers; researchers say they doubt it happens. But it does. Instead, they say, it “seems” as if many cancers start to grow then stop or grow very slowly, as has been shown in studies like one now being done at Johns Hopkins. When men have small tumours with cells that do not look terribly deranged, doctors at Johns Hopkins offer them an option of “active surveillance.” They can forgo having their prostates removed or destroyed and be followed with biopsies. If their cancer progresses, they can then have their prostates removed.<br />
Almost no one agrees to such a plan. “Most men want it out,” Dr. Epstein said. But, still, the researchers have found about 450 men in the past four or five years who chose active surveillance. By contrast, 1,000 a year have their prostates removed at Johns Hopkins. From following those men who chose not to be treated, the investigators discovered that only about 20 percent to 30 percent of those small tumours progressed. And many that did progress still did not look particularly dangerous, although once the cancers started to grow the men had their prostates removed.<br />
<br />
In Canada, researchers are doing a similar study with small kidney cancers, among the few cancers that are reported to regress occasionally, even when far advanced [as a result of white blood cells]. <br />
<br />
That was documented in a study, led by Dr. Gleave that compared an experimental treatment with a placebo in people with kidney cancer that had spread throughout their bodies.<br />
<br />
As many as 6 percent who received a placebo had tumours that shrank or remained stable. The same thing happened in those who received the therapy, leading the researchers to conclude that the treatment [with out white blood cells] did not improve outcomes.[of course not!]<br />
<br />
The big unknown is the natural history of many small kidney tumours, many of which are early kidney cancers. How often do small tumours progress? Do they ever disappear? Do they all need surgical excision? At what stage do most kidney cancers reach a point of no return?<br />
<br />
These days, Dr. Gleave said, more patients are having ultrasound or CT scans for other reasons and learning that there is a small lump on one of their kidneys. In the United States, the “accepted practice” is to take those tumours out. But, he asks, “Is that always necessary?”<br />
<br />
His university [University of British Columbia] is participating in a countrywide study of people with small kidney tumours, asking what happens when those tumours are routinely examined, with scans, to see if they grow. About 80 percent do not change or actually regress over the next three years [due in large part to the necrotic activity of white blood cells in the body with the dead cells being taken away and cast off by the body’s own waste system].<br />
<br />
With early detection, he said, “our net has become so fine that we are pulling in small fish as well as big fish.” Now, he said, “we have to identify which small fish we can let go.”<br />
<br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
Your financial support for the Macklin Medical Mission would be sincerely appreciated. Thank you.<br />
<br />
Eric J. Macklin B.Com., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE<br />
Macklin Medical Mission [Est 1886]<br />
Chairman<br />
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est 1975]<br />
Canada<br />
YouTube: Macklin Medical Mission – Cancer Cure<br />
<br />
By: Gina Kolata and <br />
Published: October 26, 2009 <br />
Edited: by Eric Macklin<br />
Published: January 08, 2012<br />
Macklin Medical MissionEric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-64870677661944877292012-01-01T19:00:00.000-08:002012-01-10T16:49:32.912-08:00Macklin Medical Mission - Cancer Vanishes without Treatment (1)Where Cancer Disappears on its own due to White Blood Cells<br />
[or, Cancer Cured by High IQ White Blood Cells]<br />
<br />
In a new series on cancer we will be publishing a few articles that deal with the human body’s own self-defence mechanisms that are either triggered by foods high in anti-oxidants or simply by the body’s own innate self defence via the white blood cells themselves without any “boosting” from lab work with the aid of T-cell modifications. In other words white blood cells with a high-IQ. Hence the reason that cancer does not affect all of us “being less prone” as they say without some genetic weakness or proclivity in the family gene pool. So here we go.<br />
<br />
Several years ago, I had a man seeking asparagus for a friend who had cancer. He gave me a photocopied copy of an article, entitled, `Asparagus for cancer' printed in Cancer News Journal, December 1979. I will share it here, just as it was shared with me: <br />
<br />
"I am a biochemist, and have specialized in the relation of diet to health for over 50 years. Several years ago, I learned of the discovery of Richard R. Vensal, D.D.S. that asparagus might cure cancer. Since then, I have worked with him on his project, and we have accumulated a number of favourable case histories. Here are a few examples. <br />
<br />
Case No. 1, man with an almost hopeless case of Hodgkin's disease (cancer of the lymph glands) who was completely incapacitated. Within 1 year of starting the asparagus therapy, his doctors were unable to detect any signs of cancer, and he was back on a schedule of strenuous exercise. <br />
<br />
Case No. 2, a successful businessman 68 years old who suffered from cancer of the bladder for 16 years. After years of medical treatments, including radiation without improvement, he went on asparagus. Within 3 months, examinations revealed that his bladder tumour had disappeared and that his kidneys were normal. <br />
<br />
Case No. 3, a man who had lung cancer. On March 5th 1971 he was put on the operating table where they found lung cancer so widely spread that it was inoperable. The surgeon sewed him up and declared his case hopeless. On April 5th he heard about the asparagus therapy and immediately started taking it. By August, x-ray pictures revealed that all signs of the cancer had disappeared. He is back at his regular business routine. <br />
<br />
Case No. 4, a woman who was troubled for a number of years with skin cancer. She finally developed different skin cancers which were diagnosed by a skin specialist as advanced. Within 3 months after starting on asparagus, her skin specialist said that her skin looked fine and no more skin lesions. This woman reported that the asparagus therapy also cured her kidney disease which started in 1949. She had over 10 operations for kidney stones, and was receiving government disability payments for an inoperable, terminal, kidney condition. She attributes the cure of this kidney trouble entirely to the asparagus. <br />
<br />
I was not surprised at this result, as `The elements of materia medica', edited in 1854 by a Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, stated that asparagus was used as a popular remedy for kidney stones. He even referred to experiments, in 1739, on the power of asparagus in dissolving stones. We would have other case histories but the medical establishment has interfered with our obtaining some of the records. I am therefore appealing to readers to spread this good news and help us to gather a large number of case histories that will overwhelm the medical skeptics about this unbelievably simple and natural remedy. <br />
<br />
For the treatment, asparagus should be cooked before using, and therefore canned asparagus is just as good as fresh. I have corresponded with the two leading canners of asparagus, Giant and Stokely, and I am satisfied that these brands contain no pesticides or preservatives. Place the cooked asparagus in a blender and liquefy to make a puree, and store in the refrigerator. Give the patient 4 full tablespoons twice daily, morning and evening. Patients usually show some improvement in from 2-4 weeks. It can be diluted with water and used as a cold or hot drink. This suggested dosage is based on present experience, but certainly larger amounts can do no harm and may be needed in some cases. <br />
<br />
As a biochemist I am convinced of the old saying that `what cures can prevent'. Based on this theory, my wife and I have been using asparagus puree as a beverage with our meals. We take 2 tablespoons diluted in water to suit our taste with breakfast and with dinner. I take mine hot and my wife prefers hers cold. For years we have made it a practice to have blood surveys taken as part of our regular checkups. <br />
<br />
The last blood survey, taken by a medical doctor who specializes in the nutritional approach to health, showed substantial improvements in all categories over the last one, and we can attribute these improvements to nothing but the asparagus drink. As a biochemist, I have made an extensive study of all aspects of cancer, and all of the proposed cures. As a result, I am convinced that asparagus fits in better with the latest theories about cancer. <br />
<br />
Asparagus contains a good supply of protein called histones, which are believed to be active in controlling cell growth via the red blood cells. For that reason, I believe asparagus can be said to contain a substance that I call cell growth normalizer. That accounts for its action on cancer cells which are abnormal in the body and in acting as a natural general body necrotic on cells unknown to the red blood cells and as a tonic. In any event, regardless of theory, asparagus used as we suggest, is a harmless substance. <br />
<br />
The FDA cannot prevent you from using it and it may do you much good." It has been reported by the US National Cancer Institute, that asparagus is the highest tested food containing glutathione, which is considered one of the body's most potent anti-carcinogens and anti-oxidants carried through the body via the white blood cells. <br />
Its interesting that modern research into modified white blood cells with T-Cells to educate white blood cells to locate and recognize cancer cells for what they are is the path to go now. For some of us, this process is natural, for some of us, the white blood cells require a bio-nudge so to speak to kill the invasive cancer cells.<br />
<br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
Your financial support for the Macklin Medical Mission would be sincerely appreciated. Thank you.<br />
<br />
Eric J. Macklin B.Com., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE<br />
Macklin Medical Mission [Est 1886]<br />
Chairman<br />
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est 1975]<br />
Canada<br />
YouTube: Macklin Medical Mission – Cancer CureEric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-82004484386255504512011-12-06T11:40:00.000-08:002011-12-07T11:08:56.532-08:00Macklin Medical Mission - Cancer CureMacklin Medical Mission<br />
Cancer Cure<br />
<br />
A number of people have written to us in regards to the above captioned program and have asked us to post a message on Youtube in regards to the cancer cure now undergoing the required multi-layered clinical trials which will take a number of years to complete. The initial trail has now been done and we invite you to view it on Youtube, which includes one of the research flow charts as to how this process generally works. The clinic, for a very small number of a lucky few is now in progress.<br />
<br />
While cancer has plagued mankind ever since his debut on planet earth along with those mammals that walked the earth before him, the scourge of cancer has been haunting us ever since. Radiology in its many forms started with the advent of x-rays in the mid 1880’s and chemotherapy, again in its many forms with various cocktails started in the mid 1940’s all of which are very toxic to the human body especially the very young and the very old.<br />
<br />
For years those who specialize in the bio-molecular field have studied the body’s autoimmune system and the white blood cells in conjunction with the mechanics of vaccines to recognize and deal with deadly viruses before they invade the human body. For cancer in its three major categories affecting the derma, the blood system and internal organs, getting the white blood cells to recognize the cancer cells as either an invasive cell or a rogue cell that permeates the body is the last frontier in the fight against cancer. <br />
<br />
As of April 2011, that frontier has been crossed in grand scale and we now have a cancer cure without the horrific affects of surgery, radiology such as TCI scans with 400 times the radiation of an x-ray and chemotherapy and its wide range of concoctions most of which have side effects, which are worse than the cure itself. All of these now belong in a museum.<br />
<br />
Reflecting back on some of our previous Blogs, it is safe to say that 90% of the funds raised in Canada have gone to capital assets [buildings], followed by prizes necessary to attract support in the first place, and followed by [in our opinion] huge and excessive salaries to both administrators and lab technicians alike. Last but not least are of course the patients both young and old. What we did not post on Youtube are the ubiquitous and endless charts for those cancer victims and their mortality rates. <br />
<br />
Our primary concern, is and always will be the children and our new Children’s Oncology Group within the Macklin Medical Mission. The cancer cure is here, but in order to get past all the clinical studies and regulatory approvals it will take at least four to five years to get this into the hands of the general practitioners and hence into the public domain to treat patients both young and old and those in the middle. <br />
<br />
While we are not looking for hundreds of millions of dollars like that which is raised in Canada every year we are looking for $23 million [a fraction of the amount spent on prizes each year] to build the new Macklin Medical Mission [as seen on the Youtube posting] and to treat our young patients. For them the grand lottery prize is - life itself. <br />
<br />
To get us started in this marvellous new program, we have solicited the top fifty companies in Canada including Banks, Trust Companies and Insurance Companies and major manufacturers and will post the results of this program in February of 2012.<br />
<br />
However, just as it is in the United States, 95% of all cancer funding comes from individuals just like you and me. There are a number of ways in which you can make a donation to this program at the Macklin Medical Mission sponsored by the Nancy-Griffon Foundation, visit:<br />
<br />
1. www.thenancygriffonfund.com and print the donations forms on the web page and mail it to us<br />
2. Or send your draft or money order to the CIBC at 23 Mapleview Dr West in Barrie [Manager]<br />
3. Or send your draft or money order to the TD at 60 Mapleview Dr West in Barrie [Manager]<br />
<br />
All personal donations should be by way of a Money Order or a Draft drawn on a Canadian or American bank and the minimum is $100 in order to receive a tax receipt. Corporate donations can be made by way of a corporate cheque. Please include your name and return address. <br />
<br />
If you work for a corporation, please ask your company to support this new program. We all know some one who has died from cancer, is dying from cancer or is in the process of receiving treatment for cancer and is undergoing radiation of chemotherapy or both with the possibility of surgery. Its time to stop and look at what the future holds for them and the rest of us. One day, we too may walk in their shoes. <br />
<br />
Your choice now is very simple – this is a defining moment - both you the private citizen and the private corporation can decide who and what to fund. The ethics are also simple – choose “inept” or choose “adept”. The larger labs have failed us – thought they can replicate us; the larger cancer raising programs have failed because they failed to finance the smaller labs. It’s the story of the small Dr. Banting lab which discovered insulin so many years ago all over again. But now you know, thankfully to the internet. <br />
<br />
This is a private sector initiative. The Government will catch up only when it decides to do so. They are always late to the table. It’s your choice now, whether this takes three years, whether it takes four years, whether it takes five years; and how many more have to die from cancer when they don’t have to. And due to current financial restrictions you will not find this arriving at your front door as a solicitation letter. This is it. Like everything else we do, we are only using modern technology.<br />
<br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
Your financial support would be sincerely appreciated. Thank you.<br />
<br />
Eric J. Macklin B. Com., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE<br />
Director<br />
Macklin Medical Mission [Est. 1886]<br />
Chairman<br />
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est. 1975]<br />
Canada<br />
YouTube: Macklin Medical Mission – Cancer CureEric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-77317867367591437412011-11-15T07:28:00.000-08:002011-11-15T16:28:01.249-08:00Macklin Medical Mission - Stem Cells to Rebuild Hearts (Cancer Research)Macklin Medical Mission<br />
Cardiac Cells 'heal heart damage'<br />
<br />
Stem cells taken from a patient's own heart have, for the first time, been used to repair damaged heart tissue similar to the use of Stem cells from bone marrow to form the basis of a cure for leukemia via white blood cells.<br />
The study, published in the Lancet, in November of 2011 was designed to test the procedure's safety, but also reported improvements in the heart's ability to pump blood. The authors in both cases said the findings were "very encouraging" and are moving on to their second clinical trials.<br />
Level of Improvement<br />
The preliminary trial was on patients with heart failure who were having heart bypass surgery. During the operation, a piece of heart tissue, from the right atrial appendage, was taken.<br />
While the patient was being sewn up, researchers isolated cardiac stem cells from the sample and cultured them until they had about two million stem cells for each patient. The cells were injected about 100 days later.<br />
Doctors measured how efficiently the heart was pumping using the left ventricle ejection fraction - what percentage of blood was leaving one of the heart's main chamber with every beat. <br />
“We believe these finding are very significant” Dr Roberto Bolli University of Louisville<br />
In the 14 patients given the treatment in the first clinical trials, the percentage increased from 30.3% at the beginning of the trial, to 38.5% after four months. <br />
There was no change in the ejection fraction in the seven patients who were not injected with their modified stem cells. <br />
Dr Roberto Bolli, one of the researchers from the University of Louisville, told the BBC: "We believe these finding are very significant. <br />
"Our results indicate that cardiac stem cells can markedly improve the contractile function of the heart."<br />
Heart v Bone Marrow Stem Cells<br />
The heart is not the only source of potentially useful stem cells. Trials have already taken place using stems cells from bone marrow.<br />
Prof Anthony Mathur, from Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, and Prof John Martin, from University College London, are already conducting large randomised clinical trials.<br />
They are investigating the effect of giving patients stem cells from their own bone marrow, in NHS hospitals, within six hours of a heart attack.<br />
Prof Mathur said of the cardiac stem cell study: "Caveats very much apply. It's a phase one trial so while the early results are great and promising, they need to design a big study to see if the results translate."<br />
He also cautioned that improvements in ejection fraction were not the same as increasing survival or quality of life.<br />
Prof Martin said he was "concerned" that the seven patients in the control group showed no improvement in ejection fraction, which would normally be expected, and that they were not given a sham treatment to account for the placebo effect.<br />
He said that was acceptable when just testing a procedure's safety, but not when looking at effectiveness, which relies on the difference between the treated and control groups. <br />
Prof Peter Weissberg, medical director at the British Heart Foundation, argued that the improvement in heart function was similar to those in other studies.<br />
"This is positive, but the crucial next steps are to see whether this improvement is confirmed in the final completed trial, and to understand whether the cells are actually replacing damaged heart cells or are secreting molecules that are helping to heal the heart," he added.<br />
Dr Bolli argues that stem cells from the heart might be more useful as "their natural function is to replace the cells that continuously die in the heart due to wear and tear".<br />
He plans to start the next phase of clinical trials in 2012. <br />
<br />
This is similar in many ways to the use of Stem cells in cancer research which are used to modify or “translate” white blood cells, again taken from the patient, along with using the structural interface with other viruses such as those from the HIV virus which attack cellular structures in the body using the similar attack methods of cancer which “hitch” themselves to live cells. This “hitch interface” is then used to “translate” the body’s white blood cells and give them an “introduction to” the interface of cancer cells which they lacked up until April of 2011.<br />
<br />
From here the “translated white blood cells” through the use of Stem cells now become a “naturalized” killer of cancer cells and cancerous tumours in the body. So far leukemia and leukomites and the tumours they create can now be destroyed without any damage to the body’s adjoining tissues. Recover time is now a fraction of what is with the use of the 75 year old chemically based treatments in chemotherapy and the nearly 135 year old use of x-ray based treatments called radiology from the mid 1880’s in all its varied forms.<br />
<br />
We, at the Macklin Medical Mission, ask for your financial assistance to support our expanding efforts in this exciting new field of Stem Cell oncology research supported by the Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc of Canada. <br />
<br />
We, at the Macklin Medical Mission, the oldest medical mission in the world, ask for your financial assistance to support our expanding efforts in this exciting new and highly successful field of white blood cells combined with T-Cell oncology research supported by the Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc of Canada. <br />
So, donate, support and invest in our cancer research – save a life. <br />
<br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
Eric J. Macklin B.Com., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE<br />
Macklin Medical Mission [Est 1886]<br />
Chairman<br />
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est 1975]<br />
CanadaEric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-7120449982394269092011-10-13T07:15:00.000-07:002011-11-15T16:29:29.782-08:00Macklin Medical Mission - NanotechnologyMacklin Medical Mission<br />
Nanotechnology – Next Steps<br />
<br />
Nanobiotic white blood cells – microbivores<br />
Nanotechnology will also create programmable white blood cells. These nanobiotic white blood cells (‘‘microbivores’’) will patrol the bloodstream, seeking out and destroying undesirable bacteria, viruses and other pathogens.<br />
These nanobots will download software from the Internet for particular problems, and could be programmed to recognize and destroy cancer cells before they would have a chance to grow and spread.40 Won’t it be nice to have some programmable white blood cells in your blood stream to defend against the possibility of biological warfare attack? It would be a simple matter to realize the organism that had been released and your microbivores would immediately download the appropriate program from the Internet to destroy that pathogen. So programmable microbivores will be the ultimate defence against biological weapons of mass distraction or biological warfare agents, as well as against any influenza pandemic or other potential pathogen.<br />
According to Harvey Mackey, 61 percent of famous people didn’t achieve their most noble achievements until after 60 years of age. So, there is a great deal of advantage to remaining in good health until your later decades of life. In the 19th century, Victor Hugo once said ‘‘Forty is the old age of youth, fifty the youth of old age.’’ At the beginning of the 21st century, we can now safely say that 50 or 60 is only the beginning of the second half of life. On December 31, 2004, there were 41 documented ‘‘super centenarians, individuals over 110 years of age.’’41 By the middle of this century, many longevity researchers believe these numbers will increase dramatically.<br />
We have discussed some of the new technologies using “adepts” from Stem cells to reprogram white blood cells to identify and kill cancer cells and tumours now (Bridge One) strategies that we can use to keep our bodies in good health until such time as to when the Biotechnology, a thousand times smaller than white blood cells (Bridge Two) to treat Alzheimer’s and onto Nanotechnology/ AI, ten thousand ties smaller than white blood cells (Bridge Three) revolutions find full expression. <br />
There is no doubt that the 21st century will be worth living to experience especially for those crossing into the second half of their lives. By following the Bridge One strategies that exist today, many people alive today will have the opportunity to see it in its entirety.<br />
<br />
We, at the Macklin Medical Mission, the oldest medical mission in the world, ask for your financial assistance to support our expanding efforts in this exciting new and highly successful field of white blood cells combined with T-Cell oncology research supported by the Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc of Canada. <br />
<br />
So, donate, support and invest in our cancer research – save a life.<br />
<br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
Eric J. Macklin B.Com., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE<br />
Macklin Medical Mission [Est 1886]<br />
Chairman<br />
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est 1975]<br />
CanadaEric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-27700260989499259672011-10-07T06:28:00.000-07:002011-11-15T16:30:12.886-08:00Macklin Medical Mission - The Passing of Steve JobsMacklin Medical Mission<br />
The Lottery of Lives Lived<br />
<br />
Some of the people who work for us also work for Apple Inc and I can’t help but wonder about the lives of so many people who have and those to who continue to have a big impact on our lives. Steve Jobs was one of those and his impact on the lives of others will rank in the millions. He was of course the exception. He grew into childhood then into adulthood and changed the lives and directions not only of the computer, but also of the art world, the film world and the world of animation and of course the lives of everyday folks like you and me.<br />
<br />
There are countless lives well lived and lives lived to their fullest measure long before their four score and ten years that is one’s basic and presumed allotment in life. And then there are the lives of children who in the lottery of life we will derive countless new leaders in society who will never get beyond the age of seven. For every one of them there are the countless millions of us who live the life half lived at best.<br />
<br />
As Shakespeare once said in his famous play King Lear [3.7:55] where all the world is a stage on the topic of death that “we must endure our going forth even as our coming hence ..” <br />
<br />
And on lives lived as Ben Sweetland once said that “We cannot hold a torch to light another's path without brightening that of our own”. <br />
<br />
In terms of dealing with cancer while there are those corporate bodies amongst us that raise funds still for the greatly out-moded forms of cancer treatment such as that of radiology dating from the mid 1880’s and now in its varied form - a hundred and thirty years decrepit and relatively unchanged - and that of chemotherapy developed during world war two, it too relatively unchanged, with its many and varied forms of injecting chemicals into the little bodies of children thereby guarantying them a 25% chance of a recurring form of a more deadly form of cancer, combined with their now lowered immune system, a better chance of death …. That perhaps, just perhaps that these people, both private and corporate should consider stepping into the 21st century … away from the 19th century and join with us in dealing with cancer with the bodies own white blood cells combined with “adepts” ... and yes to kill all cancers and tumours ….. <br />
<br />
How many Steve Jobs and little Emilys of the world do we have to lose before we make the leap into the 21st century, how many board meetings must we deal with before they begin to make the move over to the new treatment ….. and from Psalm 13 “How Long Oh Lord must we wait”<br />
<br />
“There are those who can and there are those who can but fail to see” Dr. Lionel A Macklin.<br />
<br />
Let us see how long this takes …. those with cancer know how long it won’t take.<br />
<br />
We, at the Macklin Medical Mission, the oldest medical mission in the world, ask for your financial assistance to support our expanding efforts in this exciting new and highly successful field of white blood cells combined with T-Cell oncology research supported by the Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc of Canada. <br />
So, donate, support and invest in our cancer research – save a life.<br />
<br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
Eric J. Macklin B.Com., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE<br />
Macklin Medical Mission [Est 1886]<br />
Chairman<br />
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est 1975]<br />
CanadaEric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-77676690095239432592011-10-03T20:51:00.000-07:002011-11-15T16:30:54.855-08:00Macklin Medical Mission - Cancer Treatment - From the Inept to the AdeptMacklin Medical Mission<br />
Breast Cancer<br />
<br />
Breast Cancer Culture<br />
Breast cancer culture, or pink ribbon culture, is the set of activities, attitudes, and values that surround and shape breast cancer in public. The dominant values are selflessness, cheerfulness, unity, and optimism. Appearing to have suffered bravely is the passport into the culture.<br />
The woman with breast cancer is given a cultural template that constrains her emotional and social responses into a socially acceptable discourse: She is to use the emotional trauma of being diagnosed with breast cancer and the suffering of extended treatment to transform herself into a stronger, happier and more sensitive person who is grateful for the opportunity to become a better person. Breast cancer thereby becomes a rite of passage rather than a disease. To fit into this mold, the woman with breast cancer needs to normalize and feminize her appearance, and minimize the disruption that her health issues cause anyone else. Anger, sadness and negativity must be silenced. <br />
As with most cultural models, people who conform to the model are given social status, in this case as cancer survivors. Women who reject the model are shunned, punished and shamed. <br />
The culture is criticized for treating adult women like little girls, as evidenced by "baby" toys such as pink teddy bears given to adult women. <br />
The primary purposes or goals of breast cancer culture are to maintain breast cancer's dominance as the preëminent women's health issue, to promote the appearance that society is "doing something" effective about breast cancer, and to sustain and expand the social, political, and financial power of breast cancer activists.<br />
Overemphasis<br />
Compared to other diseases or other cancers, breast cancer receives a disproportionate share of resources and attention. In 2001 MP Ian Gibson, chairman of the House of Commons, England all party group on cancer stated "The treatment has been skewed by the lobbying, there is no doubt about that. Breast cancer sufferers get better treatment in terms of bed spaces, facilities and doctors and nurses." Breast cancer also receives significantly more media coverage than other, equally prevalent cancers, with a study by Prostate Coalition showing 2.6 breast cancer stories for each one covering cancer of the prostate. Its no different in Canada. Ultimately there is a concern that favoring sufferers of breast cancer with disproporionate funding and research on their behalf may well be costing lives elsewhere. Partly because of its relatively high prevalence and long-term survival rates, research is biased towards breast cancer. Some subjects, such as cancer related fatique, have been studied in little except women with breast cancer.<br />
One result of breast cancer's high visibility is that most women significantly overestimate their personal risk of dying from it. Misleading statistics, such as the claim that one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer during their lives—a claim that depends on the patently unrealistic assumption that no woman will die of any other disease before the age of 95 obscure the reality, which is that about ten times as many women will die from heart disease or stroke than from breast cancer. <br />
The emphasis on breast cancer screening may be harming women by subjecting them to unnecessary radiation, biopsies, and surgery. One-third of diagnosed breast cancers might recede on their own. Screening mammography efficiently finds non-life-threatening, asymptomatic breast cancers and pre-cancers, even while overlooking serious cancers. <br />
According to H. Gilbert Welch of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, research on screening mammography has taken the "brain-dead approach that says the best test is the one that finds the most cancers" rather than the one that finds dangerous cancers, which is essentially the same out-dated approach we found when radiology started back in the mid 1880’s in Peoria Illinois where is was stared. After 120 years nothing has changed.<br />
Prognosis<br />
A prognosis is a prediction of outcome and the probability of progression-free survival (PFS) or disease-free survival (DFS). These predictions are based on experience with breast cancer patients with similar classification. A prognosis is an estimate, as patients with the same classification will survive a different amount of time, and classifications are not always precise. <br />
Survival is usually calculated as an average number of months (or years) that 50% of patients survive, or the percentage of patients that are alive after 1, 5, 15, and 20 years. Prognosis is important for treatment decisions because patients with a good prognosis are usually offered less invasive treatments, such as lumpectomy and radiation or hormone therapy, while patients with poor prognosis are usually offered more aggressive treatment, such as more extensive mastectomy and one or more chemotherapy drugs. <br />
In Canada one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and half of those diagnosed will die within five years either after the initial bout of cancer or from the re-occurence of a more malignant form of cancer due to the highly aggressive forms of cancer treatment from radiology or its more designer form of radiology called MRI or chemotherapy with its multifarious list of designer drugs and chemicals all part of and industry wide level of inept laboratories and their forms of “triage”.<br />
Its clearly time to go from the “inept” to the “adept” and jump into the 21st century. Its time to grow up!<br />
Prognostic factors are reflected in the classification scheme for breast cancer including stage, (i.e., tumor size, location, whether disease has spread to lymph nodes and other parts of the body), grade, recurrence of the disease, and the age and health of the patient.<br />
The stage of the breast cancer is the most important component of traditional classification methods of breast cancer, because it has a greater effect on the prognosis than the other considerations. Staging takes into consideration size, local involvement, lymph node status and whether metastatic disease is present. The higher the stage at diagnosis, the poorer the prognosis. The stage is raised by the invasiveness of disease to lymph nodes, chest wall, skin or beyond, and the aggressiveness of the cancer cells. The stage is lowered by the presence of cancer-free zones and close-to-normal cell behaviour (grading). Size is not a factor in staging unless the cancer is invasive. For example, Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) involving the entire breast will still be stage zero and consequently an excellent prognosis with a 10yr disease free survival of about 98%.<br />
The breast cancer grade is assessed by comparison of the breast cancer cells to normal breast cells. The closer to normal the cancer cells are, the slower their growth and the better the prognosis. If cells are not well differentiated, they will appear immature, will divide more rapidly, and will tend to spread. Well differentiated is given a grade of 1, moderate is grade 2, while poor or undifferentiated is given a higher grade of 3 or 4 (depending upon the scale used). The most widely used grading system is the Nottingham scheme; details are provided in the discussion of breast cancer grade..<br />
The presence of estrogen and progesterone receptors in the cancer cell is important in guiding treatment. Those who do not test positive for these specific receptors will not be able to respond to hormone therapy, and this can affect their chance of survival depending upon what treatment options remain, the exact type of the cancer, and how advanced the disease is.<br />
In addition to hormone receptors, there are other cell surface proteins that may affect prognosis and treatment. HER2 status directs the course of treatment. Patients whose cancer cells are positive for HER2 have more aggressive disease and may be treated with the 'targeted therapy', trastuzumab (Herceptin), a monoclonal antibody that targets this protein and improves the prognosis significantly.<br />
Younger women tend to have a poorer prognosis than post-menopausal women due to several factors. Their breasts are active with their cycles, they may be nursing infants, and may be unaware of changes in their breasts. Therefore, younger women are usually at a more advanced stage when diagnosed. There may also be biologic factors contributing to a higher risk of disease recurrence for younger women with breast cancer.<br />
United States and Canada<br />
The lifetime risk for breast cancer in Canada is usually given as about 1 in 8 (12%) of women by age 95, with a 1 in 35 (3%) chance of dying from breast cancer. Sadly its “only” 1 in 12 in the United States. Clearly with the aging popluations in both countries Canada is falling behind due to the inept nature of research in Canada. With the nearly half billion being raised in Canada from a number of sources this is a very bad return on their investment. <br />
In reality this is about 5%. This calculation assumes that all women live to at least age 95, except for those who die from breast cancer before age 95. Recent work, using real-world numbers, indicate that the actual risk is probably less than half the theoretical risk. <br />
The United States has the highest annual incidence rates of breast cancer in the world; 128.6 per 100,000 in whites and 112.6 per 100,000 among African Americans. It is the second-most common cancer (after skin cancer) and the second-most common cause of cancer death (after lung cancer). In 2007, breast cancer was expected to cause 40,910 deaths in the US (7% of cancer deaths; almost 2% of all deaths). This figure includes 450-500 annual deaths among men out of 2000 cancer cases. <br />
In the US, both incidence and death rates for breast cancer have been declining in the last few years in Native Americans and Alaskan Natives. Nevertheless, a US study conducted in 2005 indicated that breast cancer remains the most feared disease, even though heart disease is a much more common cause of death among women. Many doctors say that women exaggerate their risk of breast cancer. <br />
There are those who can and do and unfortunately in the “highly funded cancer industry” in both Canada and the United States there are those who can’t and simply don’t know how - and are collecting huge salaries and write-off for equipment with a technology dating from either the mid 1880’s or 1940’s. The recipes and concoctions have changed ever so little but the results are dismal. <br />
After rising for nearly three decades, the mortality due to cancer in its many and varied forms fell in Canada and most of its peer countries in the 1990’s. The number has continued to decrease but not as quickly in Canada and many other countries. In 1997 for example the U.S. and Canada experineced an equal number of deaths due to cancer, at 178 per annum per 100,000 patients reported. But since then the U.S. rate of mortality has since decreased much more quickly than in Canada, which for Canada is indicated in large part to a mis-direction in funding a research effort resulting in a considerable gap between Canada and the U.S. mortality rate. Due to the huge level of funding someone is benefiting but not the patients.<br />
Considering that both the U.S. and Canada have slipped from the top to the 8th and 12th position behind many other smaller countires with considerable less resources and GDP, it clearly indicates again a mis-direction of funding a resources even with an aging population. Cancer is cancer so combined with the highly abrasive nature of radiology and chemotherapy on a middle aged body leaving it open to a recurrence of cancer and older body of patients will simply be left further behind and with fewer options. <br />
Now we have the inept leading the inept within a self regulating “cancer industry”. If one doesn’t like that - then the numbers prove the point. What is – is! And death is still death. <br />
Clearly, what is needed in Canada is a comprehensive and integrated cancer control strategy outside of the control of the “cancer industry” to set and pursue a strategic methodology of promotion, prevention and screening of specific targets to not only get us back on track – while at the same time reviewing new cancer treatments – not just the reworking again and again two very olde sytems as we currently are – buty especially that of stem cell research and working with the body’s own defensive system – the white blood cel;s modified with “adepts” – re-introducing them back into the body in a new highly successful treatment to bring about the necrosis of cancer cells and tumours now under going very successful clincial trials which started in March of 2011 and being monitored by the Macklin Medical Mission in Canada.<br />
Your choice now is very simple – both you the private citizen and the private corporation can decide who and what to fund. The ethics are also simple – choose “inept” or “adept”. Thank you.<br />
This is a private sector initiative. The Government will catch up only when it decides to do so. They are always late to the table. <br />
<br />
We, at the Macklin Medical Mission, the oldest medical mission in the world, ask for your financial assistance to support our expanding efforts in this exciting new and highly successful field of white blood cells combined with T-Cell oncology research supported by the Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc of Canada. <br />
So, donate, support and invest in our cancer research – save a life. <br />
<br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
<br />
Eric J. Macklin B.Com., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE<br />
Macklin Medical Mission [Est 1886]<br />
Chairman<br />
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est 1975]<br />
CanadaEric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-5549460770394494712011-09-30T19:50:00.000-07:002011-11-15T16:31:22.838-08:00Macklin Medical Mission - Cancer - The True StoryMacklin Medical Mission <br />
Death Rate due to Cancer<br />
The Real Story<br />
<br />
<br />
Cancer has been a fact of life in all its forms ever since life began on planet earth and has been one of the major limiters of life in general and why so many died long before they turned 40. In some countries on this planet – remains true to this very day.<br />
<br />
A Little History Lesson<br />
<br />
1. Radiology<br />
This cancer treatment such as it is actually started in 1896. Interestingly enough this “therapy” turned up ten years after the founding of the Macklin Medical Mission to China in 1886. The treatment was developed by Mr. Arnold Feldman PhD in biochemistry at the department of radiation at the Methodist Medical center at the general hospital in Peoria, Illinois where they experimented with the use of X-Rays to treat cancer. Their initial treatments dealt with skin cancer and from there moved deeper into the body with some horrific side effects from the high energy form of radiation. The abrasive nature of this form of treatment is legendary in all its forms and yet we raise billions of dollars for this hundred year old plus form of cancer treatment. The modern “adjunctive form” of this treatment radiation treatment is now called machine-readable information magnetic resonance imaging or MRI. And while is it is much touted as a cancer treatment, the exposure to the skull has a proven increase in the rate of cancer by 50 percent especially brain cancer. [Again we refer you to Wikipedia to read on the side effects of MRI treatment - “it is still possible to deal with some of the side effects of the MRI treatment” – nice!<br />
<br />
2. Chemotherapy <br />
This cancer therapy if you can call it that is a little newer. This era of cancer chemotherapy began in the 1940’s [seventy years ago] with the first use of nitrogen mustard and folic acid antagonist drugs. This highly abrasive cancer treatments based on chemical based drug therapies development has exploded since then into a multi-billion dollar industry. The “targeted therapy” revolution had arrived, but many of the principles and limitations of chemotherapy discovered by the early researchers back in the 1940’s during the war still apply. The use of chemicals is simply nauseating in all their many forms. It’s as effective then as is it is now – i.e. “not very” [This from Wikipedia in 2011]<br />
<br />
3. Mortality Rate due to Cancer in Canada<br />
Again a little history. As he set off on his “Marathon of Hope” in 1980, Canadian icon Terry Fox imagined what could happen if Canadians put their support behind cancer research. Since then, Canada has made great strides in cancer care. But unfortunately maybe we haven’t due to the misdirection of funds raised in Canada. <br />
Cancer is still the leading cause of premature death in Canada. The rising number of Canadians diagnosed with cancer continues to put significant demands on health systems. After al these years, progress on preventing cancer and improving its management is still a somewhat unpredictable process, making it an ongoing health-care challenge for governments at home and abroad. This should no longer be the case.<br />
The impact that cancer has on the lives of patients especially the young, their families, and the health-care system cannot begin to be overstated. The long-term emotional, physical, and psychological strain on individuals diagnosed with cancer—and their families—is as tragic as it is profound. Just about everyone in Canada has been touched by cancer in some way. <br />
Even today, one in four Canadians will die of cancer, with a slightly higher risk among men than among women and tragically the highest risk being to the children. In 2009-10, an estimated 171,000 Canadians will be diagnosed and 75,300, roughly half will die of cancer — an increase of 4,600 newly diagnosed cases and 1,500 deaths from the year before.<br />
We aren’t moving ahead we are moving backwards due to outdated technology and treatments are largely to blame. The treatment of cancer is an industry in Canada and the vested interests of many in it is also largely to blame considering the salaries and the perks and the “prizes” and the consultants. Yes we are moving backwards the children who should be living are dying because of it and because of a lack of vision.<br />
The cost of cancer care also places a heavy burden on the health-care system. One estimate finds that over the next 30 years beginning in 2012, 2.4 million workers will get cancer and 872,000 will die from the disease. Meanwhile, cancer will cost the Canadian economy an estimated $177.5 billion in direct health-care costs, $199 billion in corporate profits, $250 billion in taxation revenues, and $543 billion in wage-based productivity. <br />
Cancer continues to exact a huge toll on the lives of Canadians; the country must not lag behind its peer countries in its efforts to reduce the incidence and mortality of cancer.<br />
Canada is not a leader – it is a follower and a far distant follower at that – we stand 12th in all the western counties – that is absolutely disgusting and says a lot about the medical fraternity in Canada. Try telling that to your family physician and watch his or her face – then tell that to parents of children as they watch their children die in their arms, as Sunnybrook, Toronto Sick Kids, Mount Sinai and on it goes – its is truly nauseating in the extreme. <br />
<br />
Canada gets a “B-” grade and ranks 12th among 16 peer countries. (Recent data are not available for Belgium.) In 2004—the most recent year of published data for Canada—there were 169 deaths due to cancer per 100,000 population. That rate rose – yes rose to an estimated 166 deaths per 100,000 population in 2006-7. That is absolutely pathetic. <br />
The top performer — Finland a fraction of the Canadian GDP — had 135 deaths per 100,000 due to cancer; while the worst performer — Denmark — had 199 people die of cancer for every 100,000 population.<br />
The Canadian Cancer Society reported recently that cancer will continue to place an increasing burden on Canadian society. Although the cancer mortality rate has dropped, the number of new cancer cases and deaths attributed to cancer actually continues to rise steadily as the Canadian population grows and ages. <br />
Although some of the risks that lead to some cancers are very well documented, other cancers (and their related risk factors – spread ) continue to be something of a mystery. Whatever the current state of research and general knowledge, Canadians need to make the link between behaviours — such as poor eating habits, weight control, inactivity, alcohol, and tobacco consumption — and cancer. Most importantly, they need to adjust their lifestyles to reduce risks.<br />
<br />
Even more importantly, Canadians need to make the link between behaviours of those raising funds for cancer research and where all the money is going. After all these years as I have said before cancer research is an “industry onto itself with vested interests in staff and outdated machines and outdated treatments – all of this would collapse if a cure was actually found and proven in clinical trials.<br />
<br />
At one time it was heresy to say the world was round or that blood flowed in the human body or that he sun was the center of the galaxy - well the cure for cancer has arrived and it arrived in April of 2011 and using “adepts” from T-Cells combined through translational therapy in the lab with white blood cells and given them the cancer “codex” – all cancer can be treated at what ever stage and yes “cured” – without side effects and without any invasive treatments and yes without surgery.<br />
<br />
The Macklin Medical Mission – Children’s Oncology Group [COG] is just the first and will be the only center in Canada to bring this treatment to Canadians once the trials are finished and once it has been approved by the Federal Government of the United States and Canada. <br />
<br />
To do that we need to raise $23 million to build the oncology center – and to put an end to all those outdated cancer treatments which belong in the Rue Morgue or Madame Toussaud’s Wax Museum. The center will take a few years but it will be well worth it. Just ask the children who are dying still by the thousands. Better still ask their parents. <br />
<br />
In our next Blog we will list all those corporations in Canada who refuse to help and who are tied to the existing forms of cancer treatment through their executive networks.<br />
<br />
When the Macklin Medical Mission does become a reality- remember you first heard about while blood translational cellular cancer therapy from us. The “me-too” syndrome will quickly become apparent to coin a phrase all too soon by those using radiology and chemotherapy – after all they have a huge monolithic industry to preserve and staff to maintain – as usual. <br />
<br />
12th place eh! …. Its time to be first! For the children, I say those who are last shall be first- and those who are first at the money trough shall be last. <br />
<br />
One last thing … while Canadian doctors will want to know about this treatment, they will be among the very the last to support this new treatment financially.<br />
<br />
We, at the Macklin Medical Mission, the oldest medical mission in the world, ask for your financial assistance to support our expanding efforts in this exciting new and highly successful field of white blood cells combined with T-Cell oncology research supported by the Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc of Canada. <br />
So, donate, support and invest in our cancer research – save a life. <br />
<br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
<br />
Eric J. Macklin B.Com., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE<br />
Macklin Medical Mission [Est 1886]<br />
Chairman<br />
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc [Est 1975]<br />
CanadaEric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-80082017101311270702011-09-24T10:23:00.000-07:002011-11-15T16:31:49.411-08:00Macklin Medical Mission - Children's Oncology Centre (COG)Annual Death Rate of Children Dying from Cancer<br />
1975 to 2010<br />
<br />
Remember – Remission is not a cure<br />
<br />
What are the most common types of childhood cancer? <br />
<br />
Among the 12 major types of childhood cancers, leukemias (blood cell cancers) and cancers of the brain and central nervous system account for more than half of the new cases. About one-third of childhood cancers are leukemias. The most common type of leukemia in children is acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The most common solid tumors are brain tumors (e.g., gliomas and medulloblastomas), with other solid tumors (e.g., neuroblastomas, Wilms tumors, and sarcomas such as rhabdomyosarcoma and osteosarcoma) being less common. <br />
<br />
How many children are diagnosed with cancer in Canada and the United States annually? <br />
<br />
In the United States in 2007, approximately 10,400 children under age 15 were diagnosed with cancer and about 1,545 children will die from the disease (1). Although this makes cancer the leading cause of death by disease among U.S. children 1 to 14 years of age, cancer is still relatively rare in this age group. On average, 1 to 2 children develop the disease each year for every 10,000 children in the United States and Canada. <br />
<br />
How have childhood cancer incidence and survival rates changed over the years? <br />
<br />
Over the past 20 years, there has been some increase in the incidence of children diagnosed with all forms of invasive cancer, from 11.5 cases per 100,000 children in 1975 to 14.8 per 100,000 children in 2004 to 16.9 in 2011. During this same time, however, death rates declined dramatically and 5-year survival rates increased for most childhood cancers. For example, the 5-year survival rates for all childhood cancers combined increased from 58.1 percent in 1975–77 to 79.6 percent in 1996–2003 (2). This improvement in survival rates is due to significant advances in treatment, resulting in a cure or long-term remission for a substantial proportion of children with cancer with the use of chemo or radiology which unfortunately has a 25% chance of some form of recurring cancer which drops the over all survival rate to 51.8%.<br />
<br />
Long-term trends in incidence for leukemias and brain tumors, the most common childhood cancers, show patterns that are somewhat different from the others. Incidence of childhood leukemias appeared to rise in the early 1980s, with rates increasing from 3.3 cases per 100,000 in 1975 to 4.6 cases per 100,000 in 1985. Rates in the succeeding years have shown no consistent upward or downward trend and have ranged from 3.7 to 4.9 cases per 100,000.<br />
<br />
For childhood brain tumors, the overall incidence rose from 1975 through 2009, from 2.3 to 3.2 cases per 100,000 (2), with the greatest increase occurring only from 1983 through l986. <br />
<br />
An article in the September 2, 1998, issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute suggests that the rise in incidence from 1983 through 1986 may not have represented a true increase in the number of cases, but may have reflected new forms of imaging equipment (magnetic resonance imaging or MRI) that enabled visualization of brain tumors that could not be easily visualized with older equipment (3). Other important developments during this time period included the changing classification of brain tumors, which resulted in tumors previously designated as “benign” being reclassified as “malignant,” and improvements in neurosurgical techniques for biopsying brain tumors. Regardless of the explanation for the increase in incidence that occurred from 1983 to 1986, childhood brain tumor incidence has been essentially stable since the mid-1980s.<br />
<br />
A monograph based on data from the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program was published in 1999 on U.S. trends in incidence, mortality, and survival rates of childhood cancers. This monograph, Cancer Incidence and Survival Among Children and Adolescents: United States SEER Program 1975–1995, is available at http://seer.cancer.gov/publications/childhood/ on the Internet. In 2006, SEER published another monograph, Cancer Epidemiology in Older Adolescents and Young Adults 15 to 29 Years of Age, Including SEER Incidence and Survival: 1975–2000. This monograph is the first to collect detailed information about cancer incidence and outcomes in adolescents and young adults (AYA). It provides population-based incidence, mortality, and survival data specific to cancers that occur in the AYA population, along with epidemiological data and risk factors for the development of age-specific cancers. This resource is available at http://seer.cancer.gov/publications/aya/ on the Internet. More recent cancer statistics for children ages 0–14 and 0–19 are available in sections 28 and 29 of the SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2004 at http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2004/ on the Internet. <br />
<br />
What are the known or suspected causes of childhood cancer? <br />
<br />
The causes of childhood cancers are largely unknown. [This is blatantly not true] But the cure for all cancers is known as of April 2011. So why not fund it and use it rather than simply watch more children die.<br />
<br />
Environmental causes of childhood cancer have long been suspected by many scientists but have been difficult to pin down, partly because cancer in children is rare and because it is difficult to identify past exposure levels in children, particularly during potentially important periods such as pregnancy or even prior to conception. In addition, each of the distinctive types of childhood cancers develops differently—with a potentially wide variety of causes and a unique clinical course in terms of age, race, gender, and many other factors. Possible risk factors for specific childhood cancers are discussed in the SEER monograph mentioned above. It can be found at http://seer.cancer.gov/publications/childhood/ on the Internet.<br />
<br />
A number of studies are examining suspected or possible risk factors for childhood cancers, including early-life exposures to infectious agents; parental, fetal, or childhood exposures to environmental toxins such as pesticides, solvents, or other household chemicals; parental occupational exposures to radiation or chemicals; parental medical conditions during pregnancy or before conception; maternal diet during pregnancy; early postnatal feeding patterns and diet; and maternal reproductive history<br />
<br />
What have studies shown about the possible causes of childhood cancer? <br />
<br />
For several decades, the NCI, a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has supported national and international collaborations devoted to studying the causes of cancer in children. Key findings from this research include the following:<br />
High levels of ionizing radiation from accidents or from radiotherapy have been linked with increased risk of some childhood cancers.<br />
<br />
Children with cancer treated with chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy are at an increased risk of 25% for developing a second primary cancer. For example, certain types of chemotherapy, including alkylating agents or topoisomerase II inhibitors (e.g., epipodophyllotoxins), can and will cause an increased risk of leukemia. That is a terrible price for young children and their parents to pay. It just prolongs the process of “inhumanization”. But there is a cure for cancer now.<br />
<br />
Recent research has shown that children with AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), like adults with AIDS, have an increased risk of developing certain cancers, predominantly non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Kaposi sarcoma. These children also have an additional risk of developing leiomyosarcoma (a type of muscle cancer).<br />
<br />
Certain genetic syndromes (e.g., Li-Fraumeni syndrome, neurofibromatosis, and Gorlin syndrome) have been linked to an increased risk of specific childhood cancers. Children with Down syndrome have an increased risk of developing leukemia.<br />
Low levels of radiation exposure from indoor radon have not been significantly associated with childhood leukemias.<br />
Ultrasound use during pregnancy has not been linked with childhood cancer in numerous large studies.<br />
Residential magnetic field exposure from power lines has not been significantly associated with childhood leukemias.<br />
Pesticides have been suspected to be involved in the development of certain forms of childhood cancer based on interview data. However, interview results have been inconsistent and have not yet been validated by physical evidence of pesticides in the child’s body or environment.<br />
No consistent findings have been observed linking specific occupational exposures of parents to the development of childhood cancers.<br />
Several studies have found no link between maternal cigarette smoking before pregnancy and childhood cancers, but increased risks have been related to the father’s smoking habits in studies in the United Kingdom and China.<br />
Little evidence has been found to link specific viruses or other infectious agents to the development of most types of childhood cancers, though investigators worldwide are exploring the role of exposures of very young children to some common infectious agents that may protect children from, or put them at risk for, developing certain leukemias. <br />
What research is NCI currently doing on childhood cancer? <br />
<br />
The NCI is funding a large portfolio of studies (http://fundedresearch.cancer.gov/) looking at the causes of and the most effective treatments for childhood cancers. Ongoing investigations include:<br />
Studies to identify causes of the cancers that develop in children: The Children’s Oncology Group (COG) (http://www.childrensoncologygroup.org) is evaluating potential risk factors for a variety of childhood cancers. Very large studies have been completed of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, primitive neuroectodermal tumors of the brain, astrocytoma, neuroblastoma, and germ cell tumors. One large study, the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, is evaluating the risks of second cancers related to radiation therapy and chemotherapy received by survivors of childhood cancer as part of treatment for their primary cancer (see below).<br />
<br />
COG has also established a Childhood Cancer Research Network that creates a national registry of children with cancer. This initiative builds upon the unique NCI-supported national clinical trials system for treating children with cancer.<br />
<br />
Monitoring of U.S. and international trends in incidence and mortality rates for childhood cancers: By identifying places where high or low cancer rates occur, researchers can uncover patterns of cancer that provide important clues for further in-depth studies into the causes and control of cancer.<br />
<br />
Studies to better understand the biology of childhood cancer, with the hope that this understanding will lead to new treatment approaches that target critical cellular processes required for cancer cell growth and survival: The Childhood Cancer Therapeutically Applicable Research to Generate Effective Treatments (TARGET) Initiative was established by the NCI and the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health to identify and validate therapeutic targets in childhood cancers. The first TARGET project focuses on targets for high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia and the second TARGET project focuses on neuroblastoma. More information about the TARGET Initiative can be found in the article “Initiative TARGETs Childhood Cancer” at http://www.cancer.gov/NCICancerBulletin/NCI_Cancer_Bulletin_112106 on the Internet.<br />
<br />
The Fund Raising for Cancer Research is a $25 billion dollar a year Corporate Drug Culture<br />
<br />
Preclinical studies (animal studies) of new agents to identify promising anticancer drugs that can be evaluated in clinical trials: The NCI-supported Pediatric Preclinical Testing Program (PPTP) systematically evaluates new drugs and substances using animal models (animals with a cancer similar to or the same as a cancer found in children) to find the drugs most likely to have significant anticancer effects in clinical trials. The program is based on a large amount of research showing that animal models imitate the effects of proven anticancer drugs and can be used to prospectively identify new drugs that are effective against childhood cancers in subsequent patient studies. More information about the PPTP is available at http://pptp.nchresearch.org/ on the Internet. Questions concerning the PPTP can be addressed to the PPTP Project Officer, Dr. Malcolm Smith (malcolm.smith@nih.gov).<br />
<br />
Projects designed to improve the health status of survivors of childhood cancers: The NCI funds the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS), a study coordinated by St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. The CCSS has over 25 sites across the country at medical institutions with doctors specializing in long-term care for children and young adults. This study was created to gain new knowledge and to educate cancer survivors about the long-term effects of cancer and cancer treatment. Information about the study is available at http://ccss.stjude.org/ on the Internet.<br />
Clinical trials to identify superior treatments for childhood cancers, thereby leading to improved survival rates for children with cancer: Each year about 4,000 children enter 1 of approximately 100 ongoing clinical trials sponsored by the NCI. The following groups are conducting these trials:<br />
<br />
The COG, with support from the NCI, conducts clinical trials devoted exclusively to children and adolescents with cancer at more than 200 member institutions, including cancer centers of all major universities, teaching hospitals throughout the United States and Canada, and sites in Europe and Australia. COG was formed in 2000 by the merger of four children’s cancer cooperative groups to accelerate the search for a cure for childhood cancers and to make it possible for children with cancer, regardless of where they live, to have access to state-of-the-art therapies and the collective expertise of world-renowned pediatric specialists.<br />
<br />
The Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium (PBTC) (http://www.pbtc.org) includes 10 leading academic institutions with extensive experience in the design and conduct of clinical trials for children with brain tumors. The group’s primary objective is to rapidly conduct phase I and II clinical evaluations of new therapeutic drugs, treatment delivery technologies, new biological therapies, and radiation treatment strategies in children up to age 21 with primary central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Another objective of the PBTC is to develop and coordinate innovative neuroimaging techniques. Results from PBTC studies are made available to large international collaborative groups for confirmatory phase II and multiagent phase III clinical trials.<br />
<br />
New Approaches to Neuroblastoma Therapy (NANT) (http://www.nant.org) is a consortium of university and children’s hospitals funded by the NCI to test promising new therapies for neuroblastoma. NANT members constitute a group of closely collaborating investigators linked with laboratory programs where novel therapies for high-risk neuroblastoma are being developed. The group conducts early clinical trials to test new drugs and new combinations of drugs so promising therapies can be tested nationally.<br />
<br />
The Pediatric Oncology Branch (POB) (http://pediatrics.cancer.gov) of the NCI’s Center for Cancer Research conducts basic, preclinical, and clinical studies of childhood cancer at the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, MD. Basic studies include analyses of genetic and biological characteristics of childhood cancers, as well as the study of immune system interactions with these cancers and the effects of chemotherapy on the immune system. Preclinical studies by the POB identify new drugs and types of immunotherapy (treatment to boost the immune system’s ability to fight cancer), as well as agents to control infectious diseases that occur in childhood cancer patients. An active clinical trial program includes phase I and phase II studies of new agents to treat childhood cancers, with a focus on molecularly targeted therapy and immunotherapy, as well as bone marrow transplantation and the development of immunotoxins (antibodies linked to a toxic substance that bind to cancer cells and kill them) to treat childhood leukemia. The POB also develops and tests new treatments for tumors associated with genetic predisposition syndromes such as neurofibromatosis type 1 and multiple endocrine neoplasia.<br />
<br />
Evaluations of new drugs that may be more effective against childhood cancers and that may have less toxicity for children: The COG Phase I/Pilot Consortium is a major component of the NCI’s pediatric drug development program. The primary objective of the consortium is to develop and implement pediatric phase I and pilot studies to promote the integration of advances in cancer biology and therapy into the treatment of childhood cancer. The consortium includes approximately 20 institutions that carefully monitor the drugs for toxicity and safety. After their initial evaluation for safety in children by the consortium, the agents and regimens can then be studied within the larger group of COG institutions to determine their role in the treatment of specific childhood cancers.<br />
<br />
Summary: The Macklin Medical Mission – There is an answer<br />
<br />
There isn’t a single mention here of the very new and highly successful clinical trials being run using “translational white blood cells” from the cancer patients own body for a non-drug non-chemical non-invasive based cancer treatment for the cure of all forms of paediatric cancers with the Children’s Oncology Center to be build and established at the Macklin Medical Mission [COG] once the clinical trials are finished and both Federal Approval and Federal matching funding is available. <br />
<br />
The longer it takes, the longer we will watch and read about children dying in the arms of their parents. <br />
<br />
We, at the Macklin Medical Mission, the oldest medical mission in the world, ask for your financial assistance to support our expanding efforts in this exciting new and highly successful field of white blood cells combined with T-Cell oncology research supported by the Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc of Canada. <br />
So, donate, support and invest in our cancer research – save a life. <br />
<br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
<br />
Eric J. Macklin B.Com., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE<br />
Macklin Medical Mission [Est 1886]<br />
Chairman<br />
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc<br />
CanadaEric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-29222179149525116472011-09-08T08:45:00.000-07:002011-11-15T16:32:20.938-08:00Macklin Medical Mission - New Children's Cancer Treatment Center (COG)Cancer Research & Treatment<br />
<br />
“ What lies ahead in our powers to do,<br />
Also lies ahead in our powers not to do. “ – Dr. Lionel A. Macklin <br />
School of Medicine <br />
Cody Medal 1927<br />
University of Toronto<br />
<br />
For this Blog on the <b>Macklin Medical Mission </b> and its efforts to raise the $23 million in funds for the new cellular treatment center, we would like to address a couple of issues relevant to all those about to be afflicted with cancer, those currently dealing with many of the various cancers and those who have been “cured” with either radiology and chemotherapy. For those in the last group, they have according to 2011 statistics a 25% chance of a recurring form of cancer simply due to the extremely abrasive and toxic nature of radiology and chemotherapy. <br />
<br />
The time has most definitely come to bring cancer research not only into the 21st century but to focus on the end game of cancer research itself. It’s not that we are researching the cure for specific cancers but for the cancer cell itself. I think we can all agree to that simple fact.<br />
<br />
But the simple fact is that so many who are involved in either raising funds for cancer research per say or in doing cancer research into a specific affliction of cancer is that it is for the most part emotionally driven. Let me put it this way. Someone dies, which is usually the case, of say lung cancer, or breast cancer, or ovarian cancer, or prostate cancer and off they go to start a foundation to raise funds for that particular form of cancer and in so doing lose sight of the fact that cancer is cancer. <br />
<br />
The amount of money raised by all these groups in fighting cancer for their chosen field of endeavour is gargantuan – for North America along is amounts to $3.5 billion dollars from both the private and public sector including of course Government funding. So there we have it $3.5 billion and growing. Of that amount almost 80% is spent on fund raising activities including prizes and the outrageous some of money for staff and doctors and nurses and councillors. In other words it is an industry onto itself. It promises much and delivers little in terms of the success ratio of the living and the dying. <br />
<br />
To prove a point again, I refer you to the National Cancer Research Council on statistics in England, the United States and Canada. It is practically the same the world over. To date, and at best folks with cancer can expect an approximate survival rate of about 60% on a combined basis of all cancers. With radiology and chemotherapy this 60% has a 25% chance of remission, as I have said due in large part to the abrasive and harsh reality that it delivers to the autoimmune system of the body. Terrific. So that reduces the 60% to – let see 60 minus 25% … that’s only 45%. <br />
<br />
After all these years and $3.5 in annual funding; who are we kidding other than ourselves and the kids for whom we treasure the most. <br />
<br />
OK now, let us move into the 21st century. <br />
<br />
We all now about vaccinations against the common cold right. Pretty simple stuff when you thing about it. Actually the common cold was not all that simple 50 years ago. People were dying by the 100’s of thousands. What we did was to develop a vaccine and have the annual vaccination of millions of folks starting with the most vulnerable, that’s right - the kids. The concept was developed in a small laboratory in a small Canadian town on shoe-string budget. Same story with antibiotics, another small laboratory; and again with the treatment of diabetes with insulin – Dr. Banting in a small laboratory in Alliston. Well known to Dr. Lionel Macklin. Along with Dr. Evan Shoute of London who developed vitamin E. All from the University of Toronto and all with small labs and all in small towns working back and forth with the University of Toronto. Also well known in the United States for their work.<br />
<br />
So the next time you buy a few tickets to one of many well promoted cancer fund raising corporation like Sunnybrook for instance and think of the mansions in Oakville, that grand cottage and the fancy cars that require $20,000 in annual insurance fees to run should you be so lucky to win one – think of another laboratory that has not lost sight of the cancer cell itself. After all it is the necrosis of the cancer cell we all want. Charging off into the wild blue yonder for the cure of cancer this and cancer that is a waste of assets, funding and effort. <br />
<br />
Back to thinking of vaccinations, and how it works, - we develop the strain we want to “cure” for the year and develop a vaccine, purify it and sell it buy the $100’s of millions to labs and governments around the world each year. Inject it into the shoulder muscle and then the white cells pick it up initially as an intruder then – bingo that “ah-ha moment” they interpret it for what it is and go charging off to kill that particular “spectrum of cold virus” in the body. Aren’t white cells neat. <br />
<br />
OK – white cells, the army cells of the body. What if we find a cancer victim – that’s awfull, lets change that to “someone with cancer” – say breast cancer, lung cancer, ovarian cancer, brain cancer and withdraw some blood and run it through the ubiquitous centrifuge into red cells, white cells and plasma. Take some of the white cells and with T-cells “translate” a few of these “jacked cells” and re-inject them back into the same body they came out of. These translated cells have been given the “cancer cell interface” that they have never had before [vaccinated if you like] to use a computer term and go hunting for cancer cells. White cells may die in the process but lucky for the programme they multiply – just as God says “go ye forth and multiply”…. And bingo – cancer cell necrosis. <br />
<br />
75% of the patients in the first group with stage four cancer had a complete 100% remission with the other 25% a 70% remission. Far in excess of the anticipated results including the growth in white blood cells. For those who were now cancer free these white blood cells now have the “cancer Codex” to kill again. It will never come back. <br />
<br />
The clinic is now working with its second group of patients and the anticipated results will be better yet, including that 25% which may simply mean that they needed a second dosage. <br />
<br />
If you are so lucky to find this Blog, and if we are so lucky in getting our $23 million in funding, you may be so lucky to find your cancer cure. <br />
<br />
It is now up to you the tax payer, your company – another tax payer and its Board of Directors.<br />
<br />
Cancer is no lottery ticket my friends, but then maybe we are wrong – buy a ticket instead – but remember this …..<br />
<br />
“ What lies ahead in our powers to do,<br />
Also lies ahead in our powers not to do. “ <br />
<br />
The longer it takes, the longer we will watch and read about children dying in the arms of their parents. <br />
<br />
We, at the Macklin Medical Mission, the oldest medical mission in the world, ask for your financial assistance to support our expanding efforts in this exciting new and highly successful field of white blood cells combined with T-Cell oncology research supported by the Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc of Canada. <br />
So, donate, support and invest in our cancer research – save a life. <br />
<br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
Eric J. Macklin B.Com., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE<br />
Macklin Medical Mission [Est 1886]<br />
Chairman<br />
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc<br />
CanadaEric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122597057518569748.post-31566079361335368082011-09-04T07:05:00.000-07:002015-02-21T07:33:56.697-08:00Macklin Medical Mission - New Children's Cancer TreatmentThe Macklin Medical Mission<br />
Center for Oncology Research and Treatment<br />
Executive Summary<br />
<br />
The Macklin Medical Mission is part of the Nancy-Griffon Foundation dedicated to the medical health and welfare of people. Over the years we have been involved in developing the funding and assistance for missions of medical specialists in the field of paediatrics and their staff and personnel around the world ever since the spring of 1885.<br />
<br />
For the most part these team of specialist and generalist have been involved in reconstructive plastic surgery for the eyes, ears, nose and throat and in some cases rhinoplasty for cleft palates. Initially the latter came out of the work of many of our specialist as the result of war injuries, from the Crimean War to both the First and Second World Wars again specializing in injuries to the skull structure as well as those that evolved from birth defects later on.<br />
<br />
From the early work led by Dr. William E. Macklin at the Nanking Medical Mission in Nanking China, later Nanjing up to the period of General Chiang Kai-Shek in the mid to late 1880’s to the late 1930’s to Dr. Alfred H. Macklin at the King George V hospital in Dublin Ireland. Both of these two famous Canadian doctors were later joined by Dr. Christine S. Macklin, one of the first women doctors to graduate from the University of Toronto and Dr. Daisy M. Macklin, both of who joined the Toronto Women’s Hospital. Dr. Bertrand Chapman’s work in New Delhi India was another medical mission supported by the Macklin Foundation.<br />
<br />
Over the last 125 years Macklin doctors and their associates were joined by a host of other doctors to build medical missions around the world one of which became a medical college and later a medical school associated with the University of Nanjing graduating 8,000 doctors a year from a student body in excess of 50,000. The overall impact of these medical missions and teams over the last 125 years has been enormous.<br />
<br />
Our primary mandate now is to raise funds to assist in the very new medical research both here and abroad and to build a medical clinic and training center here in Ontario, Canada dedicated to and to continue with the important work of Dr. Lionel A. Macklin who specialized in paediatric reconstructive surgery. <br />
<br />
In terms of cancer research and treatment and with the very recent clinical successes in trials with translational therapy of white cells taken from the patients body conjoined and modified with stem cells, these "translational cells" were injected back into the body to become hunter killers of all cancer cells; the time has come to bring this into the field of paediatrics. The clinical studies have shown results far in advance of what was expected. As result 70% of cancer patients to date even with stage four cancer showed a total [100%] remission of all cancer cells and related tumours, and 30% with a 70% remission with one month. Clinical studies showed no side affects at all. Now is the time to end surgery, and ectomies.<br />
Now is also the time to stop the very olde and out of date processes of radiology and chemotherapy which practically guarantee a 20% chance that cancer will return.<br />
<br />
Our secondary focus, also non-invasive, for this new team at the Macklin Medical Mission will be in the new and fascinating field of non-invasive micro-nuclear laser oncology leading the eradication of cancer cell nuclei already formed within the body’s organs and to eliminate the growth of new cancer cells identified and mapped by spectrum based cellular dyes. To narrow our focus we will be dealing especially with those cancer cells within the pancreas, the liver, the prostate and uterine walls. The use of micro-nuclear laser in combination with cellular dyes which will have the ability to change colour based on the process of necrosis of the cancer cell from this treatment and the rate at which the laser destroys the nuclei of the cancer cell.<br />
<br />
In this regards it will be necessary to develop spectral based lasers each with their own unique ability to penetrate deeper into the structural mass of the body’s larger internal organs. Currently this range of treatment is limited to slightly more than 1 inch or 2½ centimetres without having to dissect the organ itself. As a first step then we will specialize in paediatric research and care field for the applied application of micro-nuclear lasers and the organ tissue to be dealt which is smaller in infants and children. <br />
<br />
Patients will be brought to the new Macklin Medical Mission clinic for treatment on three floors of the west wing with attending physicians and researchers and general offices on the three adjoining floors of the east wing. This new Macklin Medical Mission medical center will be built once we have reach our financial goal of raising $23 million in terms of funds raised and pledges made.<br />
<br />
We sincerely hope that you, and many others like you, will join in with us in these two important and critical new fields of paediatric medicine in cancer research, and in the creation of the new Dr. Lionel A. Macklin clinic and research center. Thousands of children are dying each and every day from the ravages of cancer in its many and varied forms. We now have the answer. Lets use it. <br />
<br />
Its time we hand a final death sentence to cancer cells the same sentence cancer cells have been handing to our children as long as mankind has walked this earth. Our children deserve a life free of the ravages of cancer to a beautiful life and free even of the threat of cancer. I am sure you will agree. You only have to visit a cancer clinic in a hospital and see parents in total horror watch as their children die in front of them to know that you can not stand by – so please say yes and help us help them. <br />
<br />
· No more Radiology<br />
· No more Chemotherapy<br />
· No more Barium treatments<br />
· No more surgery<br />
· No more related side tissue damage<br />
· Breast and Ovarian cancer as a major threat to women is history<br />
· Prostate and Testicular cancer as a major threat to men is history<br />
· The terror of chronic leukemia is history<br />
<br />
While cancer will remain as an illness, it too like the common cold is history as we speak. With the Macklin Medical Mission we can bring this cancer treatment to one and all, both children and adults. Please help us, as we all know someone who is affected by this scourge, is dying or has died of cancer. While this has come to late for so many, we need to finish the job. <br />
<br />
One final note and that is that both Radiology and Chemotherapy as a form of cancer treatment that the side-affects are so abrasive to the human body that these orwellian treatments are responsible for a 20% chance for all cancer survivors of experiencing a second form of cancer within one year after remission of the first cancer. <br />
<br />
The longer it takes, the longer we will watch and read about children dying in the arms of their parents. <br />
<br />
We, at the Macklin Medical Mission, the oldest medical mission in the world, ask for your financial assistance to support our expanding efforts in this exciting new and highly successful field of white blood cells combined with T-Cell oncology research supported by the Nancy-Griffon Foundation Inc of Canada. <br />
So, donate, support and invest in our cancer research – save a life. <br />
<br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
Eric J. Macklin B.Com., FICB, FCSI, FMA, UE<br />
Macklin Medical Mission [Est. 1886]<br />
Chairman<br />
The Nancy-Griffon Foundation [Est. 1976]<br />
Canada<br />
www.nancygriffonfund.comEric Macklin MBA, PFP, FICB, FCSI, UEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12880866282374133470noreply@blogger.com0