Radiation Therapy Can Make Cancers 30x More Malignant

Journal - 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 It’s time to move beyond the outdated use of chemotherapy and radiology and move in a much needed new direction.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

Charitable Giving in Canada

Charitable 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

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