Cancer Cure - Corporate Invitation

Invitation 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

Cancer Cure - Its 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 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

Cure for Cancer - Macklin Medical Mission

Cure 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

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 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

Macklin Medical Mission - The PD-! Story Continues

Macklin Medical Mission [New drug helps body’s Defence system Fight Cancer] New England Journal of Medicine Following on the very important path-finder work of Dr. Carl June 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. An Important Note: 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 Macklin Medical Mission 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”. Thank you. 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. 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

Macklin Medical Mission - The CRA

Macklin Medical Mission Children’s Oncology Center 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 Note - 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 Cure