Cancer: The Journey
Why We need to have Freedom of Choice in Health Care

Posted to Subscribers on 9 July 2007

There is no history of cancer in my family, but a dear family friend developed cancer when I was in my late teens, living in Honolulu at home with my mother who was Swedish. Karl Axel de Flon was the curator of a museum, a specialist in Pacific art and he had been retained by the State of Hawaii to assist in creating the Hawaiian exhibit for the World's Fair.

No one would stand for transporting the tiki gods out of state so he was to help create replicas. They were supposed to look old so to give them that appearance, he did what so many other antique lovers have done, he beat them with chains. The Hawaiians suggested to him that he not do this. He ignored their advice and soon developed a galloping type of cancer. The doctors told him he had ten days to live. He rushed back to Sweden, but he died in even fewer days, I think three, but it was a long time ago and this detail of his story eludes me at the moment.

In 1972, I returned to Hawaii because my mother was ill and her best friend had urged me to come home. By the time I got there, she had recovered, but I got "stuck" in Hawaii. She attributed her cure to a chiropractor named Dr. Nathalie Tucker. Nathalie said she had been trained to work with a medical astrologer but had never met one. I said I didn't know an arm from a leg. She was quite persistent, and we ended up working together for more than seven years.

The third case she referred to me concerned choosing an appropriate surgery date for a lady slated for a double mastectomy. Two teams of surgeons were to operate simultaneously. I was provided the birth data of the chief surgeons of each team; but the truth is, I had practically no influence over either the date of the operations or those doing them. The patient came by my house about nine months after the operation and said, "you don't understand," and she ripped open her blouse. One side of her chest had healed perfectly and the other was a shocking sight: completely raw, bloody, and horrific looking. I attributed this to the lack of compatibility between the one doctor and herself. This was only my second exposure to cancer so what else could I have thought?

In short, if the diet or meditation or internal treatments made a difference, they ought to have had the same effect on both sides of her body. So, I thought cancer was an energetic problem.

The third cancer patient was a young man who trained guide dogs for the blind. He was also a diver and he had cancer of the lymphatic system and had been told he would live three months without surgery, six if his spleen were removed. He walked out of the hospital at Stanford University, muttering, "they cannot cure me here." He went to Baja California and was arrested upon reentry to the U.S., charged with possession of a laetrile, apricot kernels that are high in vitamin B17. He refused to offer state's evidence against other tourists in search of hope so there he was, denied the apricot kernels, eating prison food, and wondering if he would even live long enough to face trial. He went into total remission and is alive and well today. The ordeal was more than thirty years ago. He is a great credit to humankind and I have always felt privileged that our paths crossed at such a sensitive time in his life.

Meanwhile, I still had not had any concrete evidence that cancer is what people think or say it is. Someone who had a recurrence sent me her research and asked me to continue. I made a promise and I have kept it. However, I try to be observant and unopinionated until I see what it is that needs to be seen. Thus, my early role with patients was merely to listen to the account, the odyssey in quest of cure. I have told you, I am curious by nature, unbelievably curious and maybe also a little prone to speculate, but I don't always put the pieces together in the same way as others and this has an upside and a downside.

Typically, someone consulting me not only already has a diagnosis, but usually has also tried many treatments. One of the frustrations I discuss in my book on botanical cancer treatments is the feelings people have about sacrificing body parts, only to learn later that the operation did not equate to a cure. When surgery is first proposed, very few people are told that it is a treatment, not a cure. Regardless of the thoroughness or lack thereof in the discussions, most patients believe that the purpose is to "get it all" so they tend to be relieved, occasionally even ecstatic, if the margins are clear. At this stage of the healing journey, almost no one is given an education about predisposition to cancer, preventative measures, recommended life style modifications, diet, or emotional therapy. The information is there. Dr. O. Carl Simonton wrote his first book about the time I was getting my toes in the water. Books on various fasts, the Gerson diet, grape cure, etc., etc., etc. were available. Alternative treatments such as the Hoxsey protocol were still available within the U.S. and by then, Hoxsey had been acquitted by federal courts whose only questionable finding was that the treatment was archaic. In truth, it was found to be just as effective if not better than conventional treatments, but it was old-fashioned. I don't think anyone actually ruled that it should therefore be illegal.

Royal Rife had a 100% cure rate for cancer and 30-35 years ago, there were still witnesses to his work testifying to this effect so, in reality, there always were and hopefully always will be countless ways to address cancer. The problem in our country is the attempt on the part of those with vested interests to acquire a medical monopoly that would limit the availability of other treatments, ergo the problem that just the other side of our still permeable borders, there are countless clinics offering treatments that are not available domestically. I am not up-to-date, but the last time I talked about these issues with the Cancer Control Society, there were over 50 cancer clinics in Tijuana. There are more in Juarez and Ensenada and the Caribbean. Because I am curious, I made it a point to follow the activities of these clinics and to visit them whenever the opportunity presented itself.

Failing this, my clients tend to keep me informed. Generally, we spend the first hour talking about what measures people have taken, where they went for the treatment, how they responded, etc., etc., etc. This is how I became interested in escharotic treatments and darkfield microscopy and music therapy and many other approaches to healing that you can bet are not covered by insurance. Availability is possibly also limited and perhaps even restricted.

Once when I told a patient that I could not provide the treatment she was requesting, she blurted out, "Who do I call about my rights as a patient?" I told her that it was not clear that her body is her own much less that she can do what she wants with it. She was shocked. I didn't feel good either because I would like all my gifts to be available to whomever wants them. I do not like having my hands tied behind my back.

When I moved to New Mexico in 1979, I went to the Department of Health to get a clear understanding of exactly what would be permissible and what would not be. At the time, I was told that medicine is defined as surgery, prescribing pharmaceutical medicines, and delivering babies. If not engaged in any of those activities, I was not practicing medicine without a license. No one said, "and if you provide services to people with cancer, you would be practicing medicine without a license." This monopoly was never given to allopathic medicine, but there are those who believe that having anything at all to do with cancer is so risky that they will not provide treatments they are perfectly qualified to provide, and this is because three of the several hundred protocols for cancer have become "standard" while the rest are regarded as fringe, irrelevant, or prohibited, only because of a massive public relations campaign to denigrate the competition.

We have very few rights, and I urge you to sign the petition and make your phone calls to Congress immediately.


I was writing another essay when an urgent message came in that we must phone Congress today!  I am appending the details at the bottom of this email with my story about why we need to have freedom of choice in health care.

Many blessings,


Now the message:

Email the following message:

"I urge the House leadership to allow HR.2900 to be brought up under a regular order so it can be fully debated and amended.  I support Ron Paul's Health Freedom Protection Act, HR.2117."

Currently the bill is scheduled for 40 minutes of debate and NO amendments, which means Ron Paul's important Health Freedom Protection Act, HR.2117 or other amendments, such as that proposed by attorney Jonathan Emord, would not be allowed to become amendments to this bill. HR.2900 is the House companion bill to S.1082, the FDA "revitalization" bill that breezed through the Senate last month. That Senate bill was amended to protect Dietary Supplements and we want to make sure the House bill will also be amended to protect supplements and natural remedies.

To do that, HR.2900 must be "brought up under a regular order" so it can be fully debated and amended.

Please forward this widely.

Ralph Fucetola JD

Speaker Pelosi's office in DC is: (202) 225-4965
E-mail her at:





Seventh Ray Press
Copyright by Ingrid Naiman 2010

Home || Contact Us

No content on any of the pages of this web site may be reproduced without written permission of
Ingrid Naiman and Seventh Ray Press, publisher of this site.


Design by Damien Francoeur