The Future is in Our Hands
Blog
Information, Awareness, Prevention / United to End Cancer

George Alfakhri & Katia Parodi, Chair and Deputy Chair of the 2014 IEEE-MIC (Medical Imaging Conference), DENY TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE, rejecting a workshop that let scientists question each other in a public forum on how their project/idea/invention compares to other projects in reducing cancer deaths and cost. This is damaging taxpayers in a cover up of the scientific knowledge known for over 10 years proving that healthcare costs could have been reduced and millions of lives could have been saved but these benefits were denied to humanity to protect the power and money interests of a few.

DialogueThe proposed workshop is designed to implement a scientific procedure to make the scientific truth emerge by allowing senior scientists, which should include scientists who received most funding from taxpayers and monetary donations for improving medical imaging devices, scientists from the EXPLORER project, Crosetto for the 3D-CBS project, young scientists, PhD students, and anyone else who has ideas/projects/inventions challenging the mainstream approach used in the over 5,000 PET, to present their approaches for 5 to 10 minutes and leave two hours for discussion among the scientists who may question each other in public.

The reason given by G. Alfakhri’s and K. Parodi’s for their rejection of transparency in science with the proposed workshop was the following:

“We regret to inform you that your workshop proposal entitled “How does your project/idea/invention in Medical Imaging compare to other projects in advancing science and in particular in reducing cancer deaths and cost?“ has not been selected for the 2014 IEEE NSS-MIC Conference in Seattle. We have had several excellent proposals covering many areas of imaging and therapy and the choice was not easy. I encourage you to re-apply next year for the 2015 IEEE NSS-MIC Conference and wish you the best of luck with your scientific endeavors.”

Alfakhri and Parodi sent Crosetto this rejection statement on September 22, 2014 after recanting several previous statements and promises, setting new rules and deadlines about the submission/review of workshops’ proposals and again changing them.

First, they asked Crosetto to submit a proposal by Sunday, May 11, 2014 because Katia Parodi stated they were going to meet on Monday, May 12, 2014 to evaluate all proposals for workshops. Later, they extended the submission date of proposals for the workshops from mid-May until June 1, 2014, stating that all applicants would be notified about the acceptance/rejection of their proposal by July 1, 2014. However, Parodi added that there would be no time for discussion or re-evaluation of any decision because of time constraints. June 1, 2014 passed without applicants receiving any notifications, neither were other workshops posted on the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC website.

Finally Crosetto received the notification of the rejection of his proposed workshop for transparency in science on September 22, 2014. However, the other workshops were not posted on the IEEE-NSS-MIC website. Finally, on October 6, 2014 Dora Merelli informed all participants that the program of the workshops was available on the IEEE-website and there was only one workshop which invited participants interested in making a presentation at the workshop to contact the organizers directly before October 19, 2014.

This course of events was very different than in previous years when the workshop program was made available in mid-May, inviting participants to submit abstracts for the workshops by mid-June. The fact that Craig Levin agreed last year to support Crosetto’s workshop, even offering to introduce Crosetto to Elfakhri, and asking Crosetto to copy him on the email he would send Elfakhri requesting the workshops, but then, along with other IEEE leaders, they decided to reject his workshop anyway, clearly denotes a deliberate decision by organizers to deny transparency in science.

Crosetto’s proposed workshop envisioned a discussion among scientists on trends in medical imaging including whether the current trend to improve TOF-PET time resolution from 600 picoseconds to 200 picoseconds to the detriment of a lower sensitivity and higher cost provides any benefits to the patient and to the reduction of cancer deaths and cost.

Who does not want it revealed whether there is a positive benefit to the patient by improving a parameter to the detriment of others by discussing it publicly so as to inform the taxpayers who are paying the bill about the result they may expect?

If scientists can determine from calculations, simulations and logical reasoning that an improvement of one parameter in a medical imaging device will be to the detriment of one or more other parameters and therefore be a burden on taxpayers and damage cancer patients instead of benefitting them, why don’t scientists adhere to their ethics and reveal this before such a machine is built?

Why would a scientist who pursues the understanding of the laws of nature and who cannot deny the evidence of calculations and logical reasoning deny TRANSAPERENCY in SCIENCE in a PUBLIC WORKSHOP? This serves only to protect the power and money interests of a few rather than saving the lives and costs of the many.

Because of the great benefits to humanity from TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE when the scientific truth emerges, we must hope that G. Alfakhri and K. Parodi will reconsider the evidence described in Crosetto’s publications, in the 32-page article published in the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference and proceedings of last year and in the related poster, the documents on the website www.u2ec.org, which support his claim of advancing science and in particular reducing cancer deaths and cost and allow scientists to question each other in a public forum in his proposed open, public workshop at the largest scientific conference in the world gathering about 2,500 scientists. Because PET technology is based on particle detection, a significant improvement in early cancer detection requires a breakthrough invention advancing the field of particle detection. The reason for the ultra-high sensitivity, low radiation dose, low examination cost that the 3D-CBS technology has and the other PET devices don’t have is because the 3D-CBS uses Crosetto’s 3D-Flow breakthrough invention previously unknown. Crosetto’s proposed two workshops, one in the field of particle detection and the other in the field of Medical Imaging, are the ideal forums to gather the best experts in both fields in a single event at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Seattle on November 9-15, 2014, offering the opportunity to address in-depth the technology that can provide benefits to both fields.

Should they continue to deny this unique opportunity for scientists to question each other in public at the largest scientific conference in the world, there can be no other alternative but for those who believe science should be based on the effort to understand the laws of nature and not to conceal, crush, and deny advancements, to report to all funding agencies, philanthropists and taxpayers who are funding these scientists, the misconceptions, wrongdoings, and deliberate actions designed to deceive and cheat the public by hiding scientific evidence, so they will become aware that the most important problems to address in science are corruption and noncompliance with the code of ethics for a scientist.

Crosetto submitted an abstract to the 2014 IEEE-MIC Conference. However, for the same reason they denied the implementation of scientific procedures that would prove the correct understanding of the laws of nature, they also rejected Crosetto’s abstract using words having the standard political motivation and which have been repeated for many decades to those who are not accepted by the “Circle of Friends”. They used the standard rejection template:

“We regret to inform you that your submission (#2337) “3-D Complete Body Screening (3D-CBS) for Early Cancer Detection, Targeted to Reduce Premature Cancer Deaths at a Lower Cost per Life Saved Compared to Current Cost” could not be accepted for presentation at the 2014 IEEE MIC. …The recommendations [the meaning of this word in scientific reviews is: ‘scientific reasons’] of the reviewers and advisors were then carefully weighed by both the MIC Program and Deputy Program Chairs.” Where in that explanation is a scientific reason for the paper’s rejection?

For many years, Crosetto has asked Chairmen of IEEE-NSS-MIC Conferences to be informed about “scientific reasons” for the rejections of his papers. This request is legitimate for any scientist and therefore also legitimate for the 2008 IEEE-NSS-MIC General Chairman, Uwe Bratzler.

He found it incredulous and was outraged to hear that for many years Crosetto’s papers were rejected without any scientific reasons being given. He therefore felt comfortable in assuring Crosetto that should he receive another rejection whilst he was General Chairman, he would receive a scientific explanation and encouraged Crosetto to resubmit his abstracts again in 2008. Instead, after having put in a lot of effort, also supporting Crosetto’s request for a public review of his 3D-CBS technology by IEEE leaders in the field, Bratzler had to give up and no scientific reasons for the rejection were provided.

In the following paragraphs can be found the text of the cover letter sent to George Alfakhri and Katia Parodi and the text of the submitted proposal for a workshop at the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference, followed by the abstract Crosetto presented at the conference.

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 2:47 PM
To: ‘Georges El Fakhri, PhD, DABR’; ‘katia.parodi@lmu.de’
Cc: unitedtoendcancer@att.net; ‘bellotti@labellum.net’; ‘joseph.dent@mcgill.ca’; r.sonnino@gmail.com; ‘crosetto@att.net’
Subject: Submission of a half-day MIC workshop at the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Seattle (WA), Nov. 8 to Nov. 15, 2014

Dear Georges and Katia,

According to your instructions on how to prepare a proposal for a workshop, we drafted the following proposal that I am sending you a few days before the deadline of Sunday May 11, 2014 because Katia mentioned on the phone that you would have the meeting on Monday May 12 to evaluate these proposals and if we need to change format/length, etc. there would still be the time.

We have paid attention to Katia’s advice that the workshop topics should not be the same as in the regular conference, and that they should require discussion of new ideas for advancement of future science.

In the proposed workshop the topic: a) links each project to the ultimate objective (e.g. of reduction of cancer deaths and cost) which is not listed in any regular topic of the conference, b) asks researchers to make an estimate of the percentage in reduction of cancer deaths and cost they expect to attain with their research, either stand alone or when combined with existing components or current research, is not in the regular topic, c) is not limited to a single modality, but rather open to all modalities PET/CT, PET/MRI, PET/Ultrasound, TOF-PET and any other modality a proposer can demonstrate would achieve a significant reduction of cancer death and cost, d) seeks to identify a standard measurement of the efficacy of a proposed solution which is not in the standard topics. The fact that there are many protocols for trials of new drugs and new imaging devices but during the past 50 years premature cancer deaths did not drop significantly demonstrates the need for the novel approach proposed in this workshop.

Our workshop will allow the discussion to span across all modalities, techniques, linking a technique with the ultimate goal of reducing cancer deaths, and is not available in the regular topics. Also, within a modality, there is no link in the regular topic with the ultimate goal. For example, now people are trying to improve TOF-PET from 600 picosecond (corresponding to 18 mm resolution) to 200 picosecond (corresponding to 6 mm resolution). Is there an estimate of saving more lives and reducing cost using a PET with 200 picosecond resolution? If so, how is the estimate calculated? The expectations we have in reducing cancer deaths with the trend of technological improvements should be clear as we plan now for the future.

We believe the benefits of the dialogue from the proposed workshop would be substantial for the scientific community as well as for humanity.

Because an open public DIALOGUE is key to bring maximum benefits to humanity from innovations that are providing advancement in science and in significantly reducing cancer deaths through an effective early detection, Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths will cover the cost of the broadcasting and of the interactive discussion via internet EVO system of the event.

We hope to receive your approval,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto, Umberto Bellotti, Joseph Dent and Ruben Sonnino

 

*************** Start of the proposed workshop **********

How does your project/idea/invention in Medical Imaging compares to other projects in advancing science and in particular in reducing cancer deaths and cost?

Sunday, November 9th, 2014, 13:30- 18:00

Location: TBD

Chairs: Umberto Bellotti, BELLUM Labs. (Bellotti@labellum.net)

Dario Crosetto, Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths (UnitedToEndCancer@att.net)

Joseph Dent, McGill University, Montreal, Canada (Joseph.Dent@mcgill.ca)

Ruben Sonnino, Retired executive of ST-Microelectronics. Active member of ST-Foundation, responsible for North, Central and South America (R.Sonnino@gmail.com)

Fourteen years ago the technological innovations of the Crosetto 3D-CBS technology which enabled effective early cancer detection by improving the efficiency of PET by 400 folds, were presented in two articles and a book distributed free to the leaders in the field at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Lyon, France.

Today the challenge Crosetto set for himself in the year 2000 is still relevant to young scientists and PhD students who want to find the best synergy between detector, geometry and electronics, for the purpose of creating a cost-effective instrument with the highest efficiency of early cancer detection, while minimizing both the radiation dose to the patient and the examination cost.

Here is that sentence: “Design a cost-effective system (electronics + detector) with a long Field-Of-View that captures as many 511keV pairs of photons as possible from positron-electron annihilation and accurately measures each photon’s arrival time, energy, and the x, y, z coordinates of its impact point in the crystal. Moreover it must have the capability to efficiently exchange data with neighboring channels without boundaries, and to efficiently reject the noise by executing complex algorithms for a time longer than the time interval between two consecutive input data sets at the lowest cost per valid pair of 511 keV photons captured compared to current systems.”

The 3D-CBS technology with its innovations in electronics, detector assembly and coupling of the detector with the electronics will cause a paradigm shift in the Medical Imaging, enabling effective early cancer detection (CT, PET, SPECT), molecular physics, and true whole-body, 3D imaging.

The reason for this workshop is to understand why, after more than a decade, an invention like 3D-CBS technology, which could have already saved many lives and reduced health care costs through the early detection of cancer, has not been funded. Information provided by 3D-CBS innovative technology can also be useful in investigating many other anomalies in a patient’s body (diabetes, Alzheimer’s, heart and vascular diseases, etc.), improve the treatment of patients, and open the door to the discovery of new biomarkers through its increased sensitivity. In fact Crosetto has been prevented from presenting his invention at several IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences. At the same time, some of the Chairmen and reviewers who rejected 3D-CBS and prevented its presentation received funding for less efficient projects, and are now building a similar device, although much more expensive.

The need for this workshop is to develop a metric to establish a link between proposed research and the ultimate objective to reduce cancer deaths and cost, when compared with others projects, and to point out advantages and weaknesses. Participants are encouraged to estimate and propose a plan to measure the percentage of reduction in cancer deaths they expect to attain from their research stand-alone, or when combined with other existing components or with other research currently being developed. One example is testing on a sample population taken from a group aged 55-74 that has had a constant cancer death rate for the past 20 years. A difference or no difference in cancer death reduction will determine the success or failure of the proposed research.

The scope of this workshop is to summarize the state-of-the-art technological developments in the various fields of application for Medical Imaging and recognize those that have greater potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. The limits of current systems should be analyzed. Crosetto will make a short presentation of his inventions that would have saved many lives and reduced health care cost. Leaders from leading universities and research centers in the field, including those who presented the Explorer at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD, will be invited to present their projects comparing them with others. Senior scientists, young scientists and PhD students will be invited to analyze the limits of current PET and to compare their approach for medical imaging systems in PET/CT, PET/MRI, PET/ultrasound, TOF-PET and any Imaging system (e.g. measuring fluorescence, tissue conductivity, etc.) that has potential to significantly reduce global cancer deaths and cost. This last phase will take place during the round table discussion.

The benefits from this workshop will lead to the identification and funding of the best solutions with the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. This can be achieved through a public dialogue that is following scientific procedures where everyone is given the opportunity to present their contribution to the advancement of science in the field. In this way, reliable information can be placed on Wikipedia and no relevant contribution to the history of PET and Medical Imaging will be left out. Scientists have a great responsibility to provide ethical and professional information so that the possibility to solve the cancer problem increases.

It is foreseen to have introductory and overview talks during the first 90 minutes made by internationally recognized experts. The focus of the following 60 minutes will be short (5 minutes, including questions) oral presentations by young scientists and PhD students. The last 2 hours will be dedicated to a round table discussion extended to participants via web EVO system that is used by HEP teleconferencing and can be used by any individual. We encourage young researchers to present and discuss their work. The entire event will be broadcast worldwide by professionals in communication.

If you want to contribute to this workshop, please send your abstract through the conference website before June 15th. A preliminary program will be available in the conference booklet.

 

From: Georges El Fakhri [mailto:elfakhri.georges@mgh.harvard.edu]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 9:47 AM
To: Dario Crosetto
Cc: Katia Parodi
Subject: Decision Re: Workshop Application for IEEE NSS-MIC 2014

Dear Dario,

We regret to inform you that your workshop proposal entitled “How does your project/idea/invention in Medical Imaging compares to other projects in advancing science and in particular in reducing cancer deaths and cost? “ has not been selected for the 2014 IEEE NSS-MIC Conference in Seattle.

We have had several excellent proposals covering many areas of imaging and therapy and the choice was not easy.

I encourage you to re-apply next year for the 2015 IEEE NSS-MIC Conference and wish you the best of luck with your scientific endeavors.

Katia Parodi and Georges El Fakhri

________________________________________________
Georges El Fakhri, Ph.D., DABR

Professor of Radiology
Harvard Medical School
Director, Center for Advanced Medical Imaging Sciences
Co-Director, Division of Nucl Med & Mol Imaging
Boston, MA 02114
ph: (617) 726-9640
fx: (617) 726-6165
em: elfakhri@pet.mgh.harvard.edu
http://nmmiweb.mgh.harvard.edu/CAMIS

 

Abstract submitted to the 2014 Medical Imaging (MIC) for the Topic “Multi-Modality Systems.”

Title: “3-D Complete Body Screening (3D-CBS) for Early Cancer Detection, Targeted to Reduce Premature Cancer Deaths at a Lower Cost per Life Saved Compared to Current Cost”

Abstract #2337:

The 3D-CBS technology (3-D Complete Body Screening) is the most sensitive medical imaging solution enabling effective early cancer detection, screening the entire body. Invented by the author in 2000, it was presented in two scientific articles and a book (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/830.pdf) at the 2000 IEEE Conference in Lyon. In 2001, at the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in San Diego, its electronics were shown feasible using two large FPGA chips (Field Programmable Gate Array), and at the same conference in 2003, an industrialized version using modular electronic boards, each having 68 3D-Flow processors, was shown to be feasible and functional. The technology relies on the same nuclear reaction as current PET (Positron Emission Tomography) and has demonstrated by calculations, simulations and hardware components that it is superior in efficiency and suitable for effective early cancer detection while reducing healthcare costs. Despite its proven superiority, it has not received funding. What has been funded is the billion dollar PET market which fails to show any significant reduction in cancer deaths and cost. These state-of-the-art scanners are unable to reach the full sensitivity due to their limited axial field-of-view and their low efficiency in capturing and accurately measuring all characteristics of the signals from the tumor markers. IEEE Chairmen and reviewers who repeatedly rejected the 3D-CBS at conferences have received funding for less efficient projects, most recently at the 2013 IEEE conference with the EXPLORER initiative to develop a total-body 2 meter FOV PET scanner: “for biomedical research …to study the human body in health and disease.” The 3D-CBS invention requires 1/10 the cost of the EXPLORER initiative and has the goal to achieve a significant reduction in cancer deaths and cost. The presentation will provide an overview of the 3D-CBS compared to the EXPLORER, present some of the design concepts and trade-offs, and invite community feedback.

 

—–Original Message—–
From: elfakhri@pet.mgh.harvard.edu [mailto:elfakhri@pet.mgh.harvard.edu]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 6:08 PM
To: crosetto@att.net
Subject: MIC 2014 Abstract #2337

Dear Prof. Crosetto,

We regret to inform you that your submission (#2337) “3-D Complete Body Screening (3D-CBS) for Early Cancer Detection, Targeted to Reduce Premature Cancer Deaths at a Lower Cost per Life Saved Compared to Current Cost” could not be accepted for presentation at the 2014 IEEE MIC.

Please know that each abstract was assigned to 3 reviewers who are the experts in the topic area of the abstract from a pool of over 284 reviewers. Reviewers rated the abstract for scientific merit, novelty and relevance to the meeting topics as well as giving a recommendation as to whether the abstract should be accepted for oral or poster presentation or rejected. Two or three MIC Topic Advisors for each MIC topic revised the reviewers evaluation scores and recommendations. The recommendations of the reviewers and advisors were then carefully weighed by both the MIC Program and Deputy Program Chairs. The recommendations, as well as the limits on the number of presentations that could be accommodated, were carefully considered before recommending acceptance or rejection. In some cases submissions were rejected due to perceived overlap with other submissions from the same group.

We know that it is very disappointing to have a submission rejected. But please keep in mind that the MIC is one of the top meetings in the medical imaging field, and acceptance is commensurately competitive.

We hope that you will nevertheless consider attending the conference and submitting an abstract to the MIC again next year.

Sincerely,

Georges El Fakhri

2014 MIC Program Chair

Katia Parodi

2014 MIC Deputy Program Chair

 

**************** Previous emails *******************

 

From: Georges El Fakhri, PhD, DABR [mailto:elfakhri@pet.mgh.harvard.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 7:22 AM
To: Dario Crosetto
Subject: Re: Request permission to organize a workshop, access to Meikle and Cherry’s articles and continue the DIALOGUE to seriously address the words of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Chairman to identify breakthroughs “Beyond Imagination of Future Science”

Dear Dario

Our meeting went longer than originally planned, my apologies for not being able to answer you.

I caught up with email and saw your previous email request for a workshop at IEEE NSSS-MIC.

We are currently in the phase of considering workshops for MIC 2014 so it is the good time to discuss.

We would like not to replicate in the workshops what is in the conference though, so that will be an important point.

Please submit a detailed program for the proposed workshop and it will be evaluated along the other proposals.

Best regards,

GEF
________________________________________________
Georges El Fakhri, Ph.D., DABR
Director, Center for Advanced Medical Imaging Sciences
Co-Director, Division of Nucl Med & Mol Imaging
Professor of Radiology
Harvard Medical School
Boston, MA 02114
ph: (617) 726-9640
fx: (617) 726-6165
em: elfakhri@pet.mgh.harvard.edu
http://nmmiweb.mgh.harvard.edu/camis

 

 

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 3:20 PM
To: ‘Georges El Fakhri, PhD, DABR’; ‘katia.parodi@lmu.de
Cc: unitedtoendcancer@att.net
Subject: RE: Request permission to organize a workshop, access to Meikle and Cherry’s articles and continue the DIALOGUE to seriously address the words of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Chairman to identify breakthroughs “Beyond Imagination of Future Science”

Dear Katia and Georges,

This e-mail is just to thank Katia for giving us guidelines on how to submit a workshop (that should not repeat the regular topic in the conference) during our conversation on the phone last Friday and for telling us that we have time until May 11, 2014 (which is before your meeting on May 12) to submit a proposal for the workshop at MIC for the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference on November 8-15, 2014.

Also I appreciate that you will let us know if there are additional information about submitting and preparing a workshop.

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

 

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 7:08 AM
To: ‘Georges El Fakhri, PhD, DABR’; ‘katia.parodi@lmu.de
Cc: unitedtoendcancer@att.net
Subject: RE: Submission of a half-day MIC workshop at the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Seattle (WA), Nov. 8 to Nov. 15, 2014

Dear Georges and Katia,

Please could you let me know when you estimate to communicate the results of the submissions of the workshops to all applicants?

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

 

Subject: Re: Submission of a half-day MIC workshop at the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Seattle (WA), Nov. 8 to Nov. 15, 2014
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 15:31:13 +0200
From: Katia Parodi <Katia.Parodi@lmu.de>
To: Dario Crosetto <crosetto@att.net>
CC: ‘Georges El Fakhri, PhD, DABR’ <elfakhri@pet.mgh.harvard.edu>, unitedtoendcancer@att.net

Dear Dario,

as we are continuing to receive applications and requests, we extended the deadline for submission of proposals until June 1 (cf. website).

You might also consider this deadline in case you would like to provide a revised version. But given the unexpected large number of submission we will have to wait for the deadline and proceed after that with the inspection and evaluation of the individual submissions, without having the possibility of iterating feedback with the proponents. The final decision will have to be made by July 1, and we will certainly inform all applicants about the final decision.

Best, Katia

Prof. Dr. Katia Parodi Ludwig Maximilians University (LMU) Munich
Experimental Physics – Medical Physics
Am Coulombwall 1
85748 Garching, Germany

Email: Katia.Parodi@lmu.de
Phone: (+49) 89 289 14085
Fax: (+49) 89 289 14072
www.med.physik.uni-muenchen.de

Share it!Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on TumblrEmail this to someone

This post is also available in: Italian

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Site Overview
Please visit our
Site Overview for help in navigating the site.
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Upcoming Events
May 2017
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
May 1, 2017 May 2, 2017 May 3, 2017 May 4, 2017 May 5, 2017 May 6, 2017 May 7, 2017
May 8, 2017 May 9, 2017 May 10, 2017 May 11, 2017 May 12, 2017 May 13, 2017 May 14, 2017
May 15, 2017 May 16, 2017 May 17, 2017 May 18, 2017 May 19, 2017 May 20, 2017 May 21, 2017
May 22, 2017 May 23, 2017 May 24, 2017 May 25, 2017 May 26, 2017 May 27, 2017 May 28, 2017
May 29, 2017 May 30, 2017 May 31, 2017 June 1, 2017 June 2, 2017 June 3, 2017 June 4, 2017
Recent Comments