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 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
on 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. 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 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 presents 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" and
the rest are regarded as fringe, irrelevant, or prohibited. We
have very few rights, and I urge you to sign the petition and make
your phone calls to Congress immediately.
