Follow by Email

Friday, March 15, 2013

Cancer Cure - Macklin Medical Mission on Facebook

Macklin 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and there is always a “however” - those most affected both the patients and those especially treating patients with outdated radiology which is 130 years old and somewhat refined in today’s world with the ever present lead shields and the smell of radiological burns at the targeted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

The Cure to Cancer is Here Now

Macklin 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 preĆ«minent 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