Rick's Rant – Veterans’ Pensions

Margaret Cancer Centre Canada : Colon cancer researchers target stem cells, discover viable new therapeutic path

Colon cancer researchers target stem cells, discover viable new therapeutic pathScientists and surgeons at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre have discovered a promising new approach to treating colorectal cancer by disarming the gene that drives self-renewal in stem cells that are the root cause of disease, resistance to treatment and relapse. Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the Western world.




“This is the first step toward clinically applying the principles of cancer stem cell biology to control cancer growth and advance the development of durable cures,” says principal investigator Dr. John Dick about the findings published online today inNature Medicine. He talks about the research at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK7JquljkBc.




Dr. Dick pioneered the cancer stem cell field by first identifying leukemia stem cells (1994) and colon cancer stem cells (2007). He is also renowned for isolating a human blood stem cell in its purest form – as a single stem cell capable of regenerating the entire blood system – paving the way for clinical use (2011). Dr. Dick holds a Canada Research Chair in Stem Cell Biology and is a Senior Scientist at University Health Network’s Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine. He is also a Professor in the Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, and Director of the Cancer Stem Cell Program at the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research.




In pre-clinical experiments, the research team replicated human colon cancer in mice to determine if specifically targeting the stem cells was clinically relevant. First, the researchers identified that the gene BMI-1, already implicated in maintaining stem cells in other cancers, is the pivotal regulator of colon cancer stem cells and drives the cycle of self-renewal, proliferation and cell survival. Next, the team used an existing small-molecule inhibitor to successfully block BMI-1, thus demonstrating the clinical relevance of this approach.




Lead author Dr. Antonija Kreso writes: “Inhibiting a recognized regulator of self-renewal is an effective approach to control tumor growth, providing strong evidence for the clinical relevance of self-renewal as a biological process for therapeutic targeting.”




Dr. Dick explains: “When we blocked the BMI-1 pathway, the stem cells were unable to self-renew, which resulted in long-term and irreversible impairment of tumour growth. In other words, the cancer was permanently shut down.”




Surgeon-scientist Dr. Catherine O’Brien, senior co-author of the study says: “The clinical potential of this research is exciting because it maps a viable way to develop targeted treatment for colon cancer patients. It is already known that about 65% have the BMI-1 biomarker. With the target identified, and a proven way to tackle it, this knowledge could readily translate into first-in-human trials to provide more personalized cancer medicine.”




The research was funded by Genome Canada through the Ontario Genomics Institute, the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and a Premier’s Summit Award with funds from the Province of Ontario, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canada Research Chair Program, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, and The Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation.

The combining of personal data by Google since the introduction of its new privacy policy on 1 March 2012 is in breach of the Dutch data protection act [Wet bescherming persoonsgegevens].

The combining of personal data by Google since the introduction of its new privacy policy on 1 March 2012 is in breach of the Dutch data protection act [Wet bescherming persoonsgegevens]. This is the conclusion of the investigation by the Dutch data protection authority [College bescherming persoonsgegevens]. Google combines the personal data from internet users that are collected by all kinds of different Google services, without adequately informing the users in advance and without asking for their consent. The investigation shows that Google does not properly inform users which personal data the company collects and combines, and for what purposes. "Google spins an invisible web of our personal data, without our consent. And that is forbidden by law", says the chairman of the Dutch data protection authority, Jacob Kohnstamm.
The Dutch DPA has invited Google to attend a hearing, after which the authority will decide whether it will take enforcement measures.


​Read the Definitive Findings (8 MB) and Annex (3 MB) in Dutch

Read an informal translation of the Findings in English (8MB)

Also read the letter to Google from the Article 29 Working Party from October 2012 and the

Recommendations issued by the Working Party
​With its services, Google reaches almost every person in the Netherlands with internet access. It is almost impossible not to use Google services on the Internet. Many internet users use the search engine Search, the videoservice YouTube or the webmail Gmail. In the Report, three types of users of Google services are distinguished: people with a Google account, people without a Google account that use the open services of Google such as Search and YouTube, and people that do not use Google. Google also collects data about this last group of users, when they for example visit one of the more than 2 million websites worldwide with Google advertising cookies.

The investigation shows that Google combines personal data relating to internet users that the company obtains from different services. Google does this, amongst others, for the purposes of displaying personalised ads and to personalise services such as YouTube and Search. Some of these data are of a sensitive nature, such as payment information, location data and information on surfing behaviour across multiple websites. Data about search queries, location data and video's watched can be combined, while the different services serve entirely different purposes from the point of view of users. Google does not adequately inform users about the combining of their personal data from all these different services. On top of that, Google does not offer users any (prior) options to consent to or reject the examined data processing activities. The consent, required by law, for the combining of personal data from different Google services cannot be obtained by accepting general (privacy) terms of service.

In January 2012, Google announced that by 1 March 2012 the new privacy policy would apply to all users worldwide. The French data protection authority (CNIL) then initiated an investigation on behalf of all European data protection authorities (united in the Article 29 Working Party). This resulted in findings, that have been published in October 2012. After this initial investigation (with reference to the European Privacydirective), six national privacy authorities, in France, Germany (Hamburg), the UK, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands have decided to initiate national investigations, based on their own national laws.

Deloitte Criticisms/ Disputes

Disputes involving Deloitte include:
ActionAid - In November 2013 the international development charity ActionAid accused Deloitte of advising large businesses on how they could use Mauritius to avoid potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of tax in some of the poorest countries in Africa.[37]
Adelphia Communications Corporation – The Securities and Exchange Commission announced on 26 April 2005 that Deloitte had agreed to pay $50 million to settle charges relating to Adelphia's 2000 financial statements.[38]
Guangdong Kelon Electrical Holdings Company Limited – Investors have claimed that there was a failure to alert them to the company's poor financial position.[39]
Haringey Council Refresh Project – A local government IT project in the UK, in which costs rose from £9 million to £24.6 million. Deloitte were consultants on the project, despite being employed at the same time as the council's auditors.[40]
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) – The firm implemented the SAP HR system for LAUSD for $95 million and because of faults in the system, some teachers were underpaid, overpaid, or not paid at all.[41] As of 31 December 2007 LAUSD had incurred a total of $140 million in payments to Deloitte to get the system working properly.[42] In 2008 there was some evidence that the payroll issues had started to stabilize with errors below 1% according to LAUSD's chief operating officer.[43]
State of California Courts System – The firm has been working on a statewide case management system which originally had a budget of around $260 million. Almost $500 million has already been spent and costs are expected to run as high as $2 billion. No single court is yet fully operational.[44] California's Judicial Council terminated the project in 2012 citing actual deployment costs associated with the project and California's budget concerns.[45]
Australian Tobacco Industry – In 2011 Deloitte was commissioned by the tobacco industry to compile a report on illicit tobacco. The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service officials called the report "potentially misleading" and raised concerns about the "reliability and accuracy" of the data.[46] When a second Deloitte report focusing on counterfeit cigarettes was released, Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor described the second report as "baseless and deceptive" and "bogus. "[47] Public health officials criticised Deloitte's decision to conduct the research, as it added credibility to the tobacco industry's effort to undermine the Government's plain cigarette packaging legislation.[48]
Canadian Bar Association – In September 2003, Deloitte provided a report to the CBA that motor vehicle accident insurance claims for bodily injury had been declining since 1999 when taking inflation into account, which refuted the government's and industry's argument that general damages for soft-tissue injury had to be capped at $4,000. Within hours of release, a member of Deloitte was communicating with Insurance Bureau of Canada without the knowledge of CBA (their client) and providing confidential information. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta found Deloitte guilty of unprofessional conduct and fined the firm $40,000.[49]
Standard Chartered Iranian Money Laundering – In August 2012, Deloitte was forced to publicly deny that as the official internal auditors for Standard Chartered, it helped the bank cover up suspected money laundering operations which were earning the bank significant profits by "intentionally omitting critical information".[50]

IN THE MATTER OF an application by [XXX] for a warrant pursuant to Sections 12 and 21 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-23 [CSIS Act]; AND IN THE MATTER OF [XXX] Classified Further Reasons for Order were issued on November 22, 2013 by the Honourable Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court in file:

Classified Further Reasons for Order were issued on November 22, 2013 by the Honourable Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court in file:


IN THE MATTER OF an application by [XXX] for a warrant pursuant to Sections 12 and 21 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-23 [CSIS Act]; AND IN THE MATTER OF [XXX]


These classified Further Reasons for Order will be issued in a redacted version following

due consideration of matters related to the sensitivity of the information contained

therein. In the interim, the Court has released the following public summary:



Public Summary of Further reasons for Order

In January 2009, the Court was asked to issue a warrant with respect to two Canadian

citizens whose activities, on reasonable grounds, were believed to constitute a threat to

the security of Canada. At the time, the two individuals were the subjects of warrants

issued in 2008 for execution in Canada. The application in January 2009 sought authority

on an urgent basis with respect to newly identified threat-related activities that arose

while the two individuals were travelling outside of Canada.



Following a hearing, Justice Richard Mosley considered that a factual and legal basis had

been made out for the issuance of a warrant for the interception, from within Canada, of

the foreign communications of the two individuals by the Canadian Security Intelligence

Service (CSIS) with the assistance of the Communication Security Establishment of

Canada (CSEC).



Justice Mosley issued the first warrant on January 26, 2009 for a limited duration of three

months. Upon considering the matter further, the warrant was issued for an additional

nine months in April 2009 and classified Reasons for Order were issued in May, 2009. A

redacted version of those Reasons was issued on October 5, 2009: X (Re), 2009 FC 1058.



A number of similar warrants have been subsequently issued by Designated Judges of the

Federal Court when the criteria set out in subsection 21 (2) of the CSIS Act have been

met. These criteria require, among other things, that the Court be satisfied on the

evidence presented that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant is required

to investigate a threat to the security of Canada and that other investigative procedures

have failed, or are unlikely to succeed, and that the urgency of the matter is such that it

would be impractical to carry out the investigation using only other investigative

procedures. The Court also applies the principles derived from the guarantee against

unreasonable search and seizure set out in s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms.

On August 21, 2012 the Annual Report of the Communications Security Establishment

Commissioner, the Honourable Robert Décary, was tabled in Parliament by the Minister

of National Defence. The Report, among other things, commented upon the review of

CSEC’s assistance to CSIS under its mandate as set out in paragraph 273.64 (1) (c) of the

National Defence Act. As a result of his review, Commissioner Décary recommended

that:



1. CSEC discuss with CSIS the expansion of an existing practice to protect privacy

to other circumstances; and

2. CSEC advise CSIS to provide the Federal Court with certain additional evidence

about the nature and extent of the assistance CSEC may provide to CSIS.



Upon reading the public version of the Report submitted by the CSEC Commissioner to

Parliament, on August 26, 2013 Justice Mosley issued an Order requiring counsel for

CSIS and CSEC to appear before him to explain what was meant by “additional evidence

about the nature and extent of the assistance CSEC may provide to CSIS” and whether

that evidence was material to the issuance of the particular type of warrants in issue.



Following a hearing with CSIS and CSEC counsel in early September, Justice Mosley

issued a further order requiring the presentation of evidence regarding the assistance

provided by CSEC to CSIS. Mr. Gordon Cameron, a member of the private bar and

security cleared Special Advocate, was appointed to assist the Court as amicus curiae in

reviewing the evidence and submissions presented by CSIS and CSEC.



Upon hearing evidence from CSIS and CSEC officials and the submissions of counsel for

the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, and the amicus, on October 23-24, 2013, Justice

Mosley has issued classified Further Reasons for Order with respect to this type of

warrants for the purpose of addressing the issues raised on the new information adduced.



In the classified Further Reasons for Order, Justice Mosley has found that CSIS breached

its duty of candour to the Court by not disclosing information that was relevant to the

exercise of jurisdiction by the Court and to the determination by the Court that the criteria

of investigative necessity and the impracticality of other procedures set out in subsection

21 (2) of the CSIS Act had been satisfied. Justice Mosley has found that such information

must be disclosed to the Court on any subsequent application for similar warrants.



In conducting its review of Commissioner Décary’s recommendations, the Court has

determined that the execution of the type of warrants at issue in Canada has been

accompanied by requests made by CSEC, on behalf of CSIS, to foreign agencies

(members of the “Five Eyes” alliance), for the interception of the telecommunications of

Canadian persons abroad.



The Court expresses its views about this practice in its classified Further Reasons for

Order. However, it is concerned that statements in the public record, notably in the 2012-

2013 Annual Report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) recently

tabled in Parliament, may result in a false impression about the nature and scope of such warrants. The SIRC Report discusses the Committee’s “first examination of a new

warrant power under Section 21 of the CSIS Act which was initially authorized by the

Federal Court in 2009”. The report further states: “In order to maximize collection under

the new warrant power, CSIS, in almost every case, leverages the assets of the Five Eyes

community…”



This practice is addressed in the Court’s classified Further Reasons for Order. However,

in light of these public statements, the Court considers it necessary to state that the use of

“the assets of the Five Eyes community” is not authorized under any warrant issued to

CSIS pursuant to the CSIS Act. The question of whether CSIS may, with the assistance of

CSEC, engage the surveillance capabilities of foreign agencies was not raised in the

application that resulted in the issuance of the first such warrant or in any subsequent

warrants of this type.



****

A prominent judge has found that a Canadian spy service has not been forthcoming with Federal Court. The ruling, which is classified, will likely slow down a trend toward partnerships among intelligence agencies, observers say, while also raising questions about whether Canada’s courts and watchdog agencies can keep up with complex spying practices.

A prominent judge has found that a Canadian spy service has not been forthcoming with Federal Court.

The ruling, which is classified, will likely slow down a trend toward partnerships among intelligence agencies, observers say, while also raising questions about whether Canada’s courts and watchdog agencies can keep up with complex spying practices.






On Friday, the court released a classified ruling to interested parties. A public version of the ruling is set to be circulated in coming days.In a highly unusual statement, the Federal Court says that Justice Richard Mosley found last week that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was not sufficiently open about all the surveillance alliances it planned to form. Five years ago, CSIS had persuaded him to sign off on a foundational eavesdropping warrant to extend its reach outside Canada.

On Monday, the court gave a hint of what is coming. “Justice Mosley has found that CSIS breached its duty of candour to the Court by not disclosing information that was relevant,” the statement said. And it added that, despite perceptions to the contrary, “the Court considers it necessary to state that the use of ‘the assets of the Five Eyes community’ is not authorized under any warrant issued.”

The “Five Eyes” refers to the alliance of U.S., British, Canadian, New Zealand and Australian intelligence agencies, known more for co-operating on big-picture intelligence issues than for advancing particular investigations against individuals. Last month, a federal watchdog agency circulated a report that said CSIS “leverages the assets of the Five Eyes community” in each of the 35-plus special warrants it has obtained since 2009.

Last week, Judge Mosley and Federal Court felt compelled to clarify that they never authorized that foreign agencies advance Canadian investigations.

The special CSIS warrant power was first granted in 2009, when two Canadian terrorism suspects were hopping borders and thwarting wiretaps. Because surveillance laws stopped at the border, CSIS asked Judge Mosley to preside over a marriage between itself and a “foreign-intelligence” Canadian agency, so that authorities could better eavesdrop on these individuals.

Intelligence agencies kept tabs on the two suspects for a year; it is not clear what happened to the suspects. Details are classified.

Legal observers says the new ruling hurts CSIS’s credibility.

“If you are going to be given the right to do things in secret, you have to be held to the highest standard,” said Norm Boxall, a lawyer who has battled CSIS secrecy in courts.

The new ruling may bring far more scrutiny on the way that CSIS and other federal agencies enlist the far-reaching powers of Communications Security Establishment Canada, a spy agency that collects global telecommunications, in partnership with the Five Eyes, while being banned from spying on Canadian communications.

In exceptional cases, federal security agencies can seek legal clearance to advance their investigations by enlisting CSEC’s ability to tap global telecommunications traffic. Records this week released to The Globe under Access to Information laws show that CSEC receives a total of between 70 and 80 such “support to lawful access requests,” each year from CSIS, the RCMP, Canada Border Services Agency and National Defence.

Further breakdowns were withheld for national security reasons.

RI-MUHC posts 15% increase in funding and takes second spot on Research Infosource annual list of Canadian Research Hospital Innovators

RI-MUHCsecondinCanadainresearchfunding







Total research income at Canada’s 40 leading hospitals expanded by a solid 4.8% in Fiscal 2012.







RI-MUHC posts 15% increase in funding and takes second spot on Research Infosource annual list of Canadian Research Hospital Innovators

Total research income at Canada’s 40 leading hospitals expanded by a solid 4.8% in Fiscal 2012, according to Research Infosource Inc., Canada’s Source of R&D Intelligence, which today released its annual Canada’s Top 40 Research Hospitals List, ranking Canadian hospitals on their success in attracting support for health research. Combined income for research expanded to $2.3 billion from $2.2 billion in Fiscal 2011. The 2012 result is especially comforting in light of last year’s meagre national funding increase of only 0.7%.

Toronto’s University Health Network built on its leadership position by attracting $302.3 million of research funding, a growth of 19.4% from the previous year. The Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (RI-MUHC) moved into 2nd place nationally with research income rising to $175.7 million; an increase of 14.8% over Fiscal 2011. Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children came in at 3rd place in the national ranking at $171.2 million, an increase of 2.0%. Ottawa Hospital ($152.7 million, 17.5%) and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority ($134.3 million, 11.6%) rounded out the top 5 institutions.

Overall, 28 hospitals posted increases in research income in Fiscal 2012, compared with 12 hospitals where income declined or was flat. The strongest gains in research income were made by Saskatoon Regional Health Authority (81.7%), who made their debut on the list in Fiscal 2012 ranked at 35, followed by Centre de santé et des services sociaux – Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Sherbrooke (76.0%) and Eastern Health Regional Health Authority (72.2%).

For complete information: http://www.researchinfosource.com/top40_hosp.php

About Research Infosource Inc.

Research Infosource Inc., a division of The Impact Group, is Canada's source of R&D intelligence. Research Infosource Inc. publishes Canada’s Innovation Leaders, which includes Canada's Top 100 Corporate R&D Spenders List, Canada's Top 50 Research Universities List, Canada’s Top 40 Research Hospitals List and Canada’s Top 50 Research Colleges List.