Medicare for All?

Posted to Subscribers on 3 August 2019


Dear Subscribers,

Round Two behind us and more than a year to go . . . I will try not to comment about individual candidates but rather the absence of genius where health care is concerned. "Medicare for All" has become a kind of mantra, but is it a compassionate program or a Trojan horse masquerading as compassion? Actually, it is probably a ballot box in disguise.

I was nine when I first heard about socialism and socialized medicine. I was living in Sweden and listening to what people were saying about the huge sociological changes taking place. By twelve, similar accounts were pouring in from the U.K. Now, at nearly 77, the gestation is so far back that I cannot recall when my own brain child was born. As mentioned in previous posts, I wrote some candidates to offer my program and none responded with so much as a courtesy note. Normally, if one writes an elected official, even POTUS himself, someone responds with a note saying the matter will be presented to the addressee, not the case with the candidates who are, of course, engaged in the battle of their lives. At the moment, they look like professional assassins, ready to jab the knife in and twist to reach their goals. Later, they will have to kiss and make up and pretend all is forgiven between fellow party members. The system is nasty. . . and the health care issues are being brewed in this sick soup so let's see if anything can be refocused.

Civilization: Public and Private

With boundaries becoming increasingly blurry, we have already seen the birth of the second generation of IT addicts, an era in which our friends are virtual and privacy is non-existent. Identity is so vague that many cannot even agree on their genders much less their politics. Add mind control to the various algorithms that shape our realities and where are we?

Campaigns are always focused on promises that may or may not be remembered once putting one's hand on the Bible, a tradition should have come onto the radar since we already had a Moslem president . . . and who knows if there with be Hindu or Jewish president one day. The oath should probably be to the flag and not the one with gold fringes!

Anyway, let me try to plow this field a bit. In my opinion, just an opinion, there should be a boundary between public and private. Politicians and celebrities may not be able to maintain that boundary, but less visible individuals have a constitutional right to privacy. Where health is concerned, the exception is with communicable diseases since these pose a potential risk to others.

One of the economic arguments made for socialized health care is that the monkey is taken off the back of employers, and this, in turn, will have a positive effect on jobs and business. When employers are forced to cover health care, changing jobs can be costly so removing this burden from employers ought to have a stimulating effect on entrepreneurship and a liberating effect on employees. Regardless of how the system is organized, there are costs involved in health care, and not everyone's pockets are deep enough to bear those costs.

For me, someone who has not seen a doctor in 49 years, the requirement for health coverage, whether in the U.S. or another country, is a form of taxation without representation. If the approaches to health to which I am open are not covered, the requirement for coverage is involuntary so I have chosen to pay the fines rather than comply. That is also involuntary, but I know there are many who hold similar beliefs as well as many who want Medicare for All. . . . but do they understand the details?

Big Question

This is an immense subject because most legislation arises out of conventional thinking. This includes laws such as what is acceptable and what is illegal. Once there are laws, there are obstacles to innovation and progress so laws generally serve the status quo — and vested interests — rather than progress. This is one reason I see socialized medicine as a Trojan horse: tens of millions of new customers will be delivered to a system that is already unbelievably flawed and likely to get worse, especially if the thought police have any influence. Since everyone seems to be in bed with everyone else, we cannot rule out the probability that politicians and their lobbyists are in cahoots with Big Pharma and, of course, the media upon whom they depend for sound bites or bytes . . . as the case may be.

Just how complicated is the playing field? When Donald Trump moved into the White House, he created a Vaccine Safety Board, headed by Robert Kennedy, Jr. In a recent photo op with the Pakistani head of state, Trump said, "We are going to talk about the polio vaccine." I stopped watching at that point because there seems to be no moral rudder between marketing and medicine.


In several recent posts, I have underscored that Lyme disease is a consequence of a biological weapons program, a military strategy that has always been immoral, and at times, such as now, illegal. Unfortunately, Lyme disease is not the only "mishap" of such programs but what is worse is that the conflicts of interest among the so-called experts on Lyme disease are so enormous that progress in treating the disease has not been much to rave about. In the meantime, because some individuals with conflicts of interest have set the standards, the consequences of deviating from the permitted include anything from losing one's license to fines and imprisonment. We ought to add assassination to the list since over a hundred doctors have died mysteriously, more for their involvement in autism treatment than Lyme treatment, but the handwriting is on the wall.

As you know, I cannot do what I want to do in the land of the free, and several people have recently suggested Tijuana, the town of refugees from a coercive system that protects profits over people. The argument for Medicine for All being advanced by politicians is that the government would do a better job than private industry . . . how exactly? What does our government do better than private anything? It awards enormous contracts to cronies and has very little to show for its massive expenditures.

This said, the government created some unique problems, and it ought to fix these problems. I will address this shortly, but first a few sentences about the areas in which government agencies have responsibility and the areas that are perhaps more negotiable.


Issues such as water safety are public concerns, and I believe some national and international effort will be required to avert disaster. For example, no one should be drinking radioactive water, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere. However, 170 million Americans are drinking radioactive water:

Obviously, this is a problem that needs to be addressed at the federal level. Speaking for myself, I favor dismantlement of all nuclear power plants since all are accidents waiting to happen. They are constructed to last 40 years, 60 perhaps if built to higher specifications, but they contain radioactive materials with half lives of thousands of years, even millions of years . . . without any plans in place for how to handle this waste. This is the kind of problem that can only be addressed by public policy, some of it international in scope.

Where fluoride is concerned, the number of affected individuals in the U.S. is even higher, about 75% of the population is exposed to a nonconsensual dental "treatment" with hugely serious potential consequences, but the water treatment facilities make the decisions so, technically speaking, this is not a federal problem though research — honest research — could be done at the federal level that involves the FDA and perhaps other agencies. Neutral research is almost non-existent in today's world and guidelines are seldom sufficiently stringent: cross your fingers! I do not see any changes coming soon to a pipe near you.

The point here is that these are two very commonplace but important examples of situations affecting health that are best addressed by governments. Municipalities and capitals have a duty to the public to guarantee the safety of public water. At present, they are derelict in their duties to citizens.

Communicable Diseases and Weapons

Plum Island, where the biological weapons work leading to Lyme disease was done, was put up for sale, but the cost of remediation was astronomical. The government should foot this bill and do the work properly: cross your fingers! There are, of course, other areas where various experiments have been conducted, no, not just prisons, but these involve everything from the release of militarized mosquitoes to aerial sprays. The government should cover the costs of any adverse consequences on the environment and health. Cross your fingers!

There are horrific problems at the Hanford Nuclear site, a federal government facility. Someone needs to put feet to the fire to address this properly. Cross your fingers?

Personally, I think the lying corporations should be responsible for "accidents" in their own facilities. As we have seen, Chernobyl is still a disaster and the dangers extended far beyond the exclusion zone. Basically, most of Western Europe was impacted so safe alternatives for boiling water need to be encouraged. In my Santa Fe days, as an activist, I heard phrases like using nuclear power to boil water is like slicing butter with a chain saw. If there really is a correlation between human activity and climate change, I suspect that much of the world could go solar with a nominal investment. Several years ago, I posted all kinds of ways for cooking without fuel: solar ovens, even designs for entire bakeries that rely on solar. In short, everything from simple cardboard boxes or umbrellas lined with foil to elegant adobe ovens using glass, mostly using readily available or recycled materials that are reasonably safe and last almost indefinitely. For the record, one can actually cook outdoors in the snow in places like Norway where even daylight is scarce in winter so the possibilities are limitless . . . and we do not need risky reactors. It is beyond time to retire all nuclear reactors.

These are simple examples of conditions that exist almost worldwide that contribute to chronic health problems. All the the examples thus far could be alleviated through sensible public policies rather than euphemisms like Environmental Protection Agency or whatever other alphabet agencies are failing their duties to the public.

On a personal level, try to imagine recovering acuity and energy! Imagine living without fear of developing cancer! These ideas are just the tip of the iceberg.


Next on my punch list are chemtrails. It is not clear exactly what the current status is, but most people I know continue to report activity in the skies. Wikipedia et al might insist that chemtrails are a figment of the imagination of conspiracy theorists, but we should be as skeptical of Wikipedia as they are of conspiracies. Obviously, something is going on in the skies and it rains down not just in the U.S. but in most parts of Canada and Europe. It was such a blessing to be free of chemtrails in Ecuador!

Chemtrails ought to be a very high priority at meetings of international leaders but it is the U.S. that holds the patents so the buck stops here. Whether a priority or not, chemtrails should be high on the list of matters that require attention. Like all the other points raised, there will be mighty forces to overcome so the question is whether there is enough public will to influence public policy.

That said, my guess is that chemtrails will be even harder to stop than nuclear power, but the "rain" is hugely damaging to health and to the environment so it is a bit hypocritical to suggest that we need Medicare for All when the bigger threats to health are not addressed.

Sometimes, I get the feeling that the exit plan of the elites is to go another Planet and probably wreck it as well. In short, they will do what they have always done: slaughter the local population and bring our worst proclivities wherever we go. Unless our behavior changes, we will perhaps remain in lockdown . . . but perhaps some highly conscious people will be evacuated to preserve specimens of a species. Okay, I will try to stay focused and not speculate on the future.

Carrying these points to their logical conclusion, all remediation of soil and water, forests and habitats, as well as health of individuals impacted by reckless policies should be borne by the governments and corporations at fault.


There is a lot of chatter about nationalizing insurance. Given the state of our government, I seriously doubt anyone would prefer bureaucratic incompetence over the brutal experiences with insurers. Worse, having outsourced so many jobs, the U.S. is basically a financial basket case in which toxic financial products are foisted on the unsuspecting but what would happen if the health insurance industry simply vanished? Obviously, many businesses and some large corporations would go belly up, but what else? I am sure, as they say in Germany, there will be "a devil in the details." One of the devils is priorities. Each diagnosis correlates to a level of urgency as well as a budget, usually including caps on outlays. Some conditions will be ignored because of absence of diagnosis and/for lack of funding. What will be especially ignored are the conditions that are deemed not to exist such as Morgellon's as well as ones that are alleged to be easy to treat like Lyme disease and fungal infections.

I have alternatives to propose, but I do believe that governments — from the municipal level on up — are responsible to customers and citizens for their parts in contributing to diminished health. For this and others reasons, I favor Andrew Yang's universal basic income proposal. On the surface, one would say that no government can bear the costs of fixing the problems. This is incorrect because money itself is not widely understood. If we equate money, paper or digital, to something tangible like gold or silver, money appears finite. But if we regard money as energy, its value correlates to velocity rather than assets. Yang obviously understands this and is therefore challenging Americans to think harder.

In economic parlance, money has a multiplier effect so it accomplishes more when changing hands frequently. The joke that made the rounds of the Internet some yeas ago has been mentioned in some of my previous posts, but I found a new version of it on Forbes:

A bald-headed bearded stranger stopped in town and went into a small old hotel to check in. He asked to go check out the rooms first so, in good faith, he left a $100 bill—a deposit of sorts—with the hotel owner. The hotel owner immediately ran next door to pay his grocery bill. The grocer ran it across the street to pay one of his suppliers. The supplier used it to pay off his co-op bill. The co-op guy ran it back across the street to pay the local hooker who had taken up residence in the aforementioned hotel. The hooker ran it downstairs to pay her hotel bill just ahead of the returning traveler, who picked the $100 bill off the desk and left saying that the rooms were not satisfactory.

Someone asked the hotel owner, “Who was that stranger?” The owner said, “I don’t know, but he sure looked a lot like Ben Bernanke.”

If every person had an extra thousand per month to spend, a lot of energy and purchasing power would be set in motion, and the velocity would stimulate opportunities, preferably at the local level. That is part of the beauty of the possibilities. If the money is only used to pay off debts, the multiplier effect is not as meaningful so a debt jubilee is another very good campaign strategy.

Yang seems to believe that the extra funds will take pressure off families and allow people to explore their creativity. For this he is being described as a Renaissance thinker. I think he is the most creative thinker and most articulate of the candidates and perhaps also the most optimistic because he is premising a lot on people using the extra income to unlock their talents and to become more involved in their communities. I agree that this kind of subsidy is more humane than other proposals such an tweaking of minimum wages. Moreover, it takes pressure off corporations to pay more to stay in operation so it is a win-win and brilliant. It is however so novel that people are going to need time to understand his ideas.

Trickle Effects

The bottom line of Yang's plan is that the support works in many subtle ways. It essentially eliminates poverty and destitution. This, in turn, would take people off the streets, make our cities cleaner and safer, and eliminate many inequities that deprived people of opportunity. In short, I think drug and alcohol addiction, crime, and even bitterness would diminish. Fewer people would be incarcerated so what seems to be an expense is actually an investment in society.

That said, I do not see this one adjustment as a solution to health care though I think it would take pressure off a lot of people. The government still has to tackle the big issues affecting safety of our air, water, and soil.

People who are well cease to be a burden on others and momentum picks up. Years ago, around 1970 or thereabouts, I felt the U.S. would become a post-industrial agrarian society. I confess I had not factored in the role of horrific agricultural policies that would poison our soil and water, but it is not possible to outsource industry without paying a high price. As I watch Trump, I see that the jobs he is creating are mostly in weapons sales, yes planes and meat as well, but nothing so far speaks to sustainability much less safety. This is where out-of-the-box thinking is required. It is one thing to be unpredictable and another to be original.

In my opinion, Yang is on terra firma. Moreover, by referencing community-based initiatives, some traditional values may be recovered, such as responsibilities to family and community. At the moment, the fabric of society is being shredded by ambitions to scale the corporate ladder and over-reliance on virtual experiences over connectivity with real people and Nature.

Domino Effects

As someone concerned about the causes of disease, I want to underscore that we are involuntarily conscripted into situations that are unhealthy because of overreaching policies that benefit very specific interests of dubious merit. Who benefits by providing electricity generated by nuclear power? Who benefits by selling fluoride? Who benefits by selling aluminum and medical waste to use in chemtrails? Who benefits from biological weapons? The answer in all these situations is that the number of victims or potential victims is totally disproportionate to the alleged benefits in terms of convenience, costs, and safety. In most instances, a few companies and their stockholders benefit. In the case of Chernobyl, some of the liquidators had to perform suicidal tasks to protect others. What kind of job makes this kind of demand on its employees?

Carrying these concepts a bit further, we can address issues of food and whether genetically modified food is safe. We should assume it is not. Certainly Round Up is not safe, and yet generations to come will be suffering from its effects just as the rubber plantations, Ho Chi Minh Trail, and people who fought in Vietnam, not to mention those who remain in Vietnam, all suffer from the consequences of Agent Orange. Substances like Round Up have been exported and produced income for giant corporations but at what cost? Many countries have prohibited the sale and some have faced retaliation by our meddling government. Breaking the ties between government and industry seems important, but it is also complicated because heavy reliance on weapons and high tech affects safety on multiple levels. As we are seeing, no governmental or corporate communications are secure, and this creates vulnerabilities.


Now, try to imagine a country of over 300 million people, all of whom have been exposed and often continue to be exposed to some of these hazards and try to calculate the impact on health if the hazards were resolved. Then, imagine not having to experience diminished potential and loss of productivity because of the factors mentioned? How would life be different? How much health could be recovered?

There are many more changes that could take place at regulatory levels. These include Wi-Fi exposures and interference in our lives through various frequency experiments and intrusions. For instance, everyone should have the opportunity to opt out easily and simply from Smart Meters, not to mention that we should all be involved in discussions of the safety of 5G. When cell phones were first introduced, a Swedish neurosurgeon, Leif Salford, said:

“Voluntary brain microwave irradiation from mobile phones is the largest biological experiment on a human being.”

It is not just Sweden. In France, the problem is described as the "invisible plague." One country after another has begun removing cell towers from schools and office places, almost in the same way that smoking was banned in public places in some countries.

Everything I have mentioned thus far involves some level of public oversight and responsibility. Each situation results in some level of stress, and since stress is cumulative, we are all increasingly affected by bad planning, poor policies. and reckless authorization from agencies charged with protecting citizens. In short, all the exposures cited have long-term and far reaching effects and all are more or less independent of our own behavior and life styles. Sometimes my language is not quite clear enough, but we have choices such as whether or not to use a microwave oven or to smoke, and we are responsible for those choices. Up to a point, it could be said that we have some choice with respect to cell phone usage, but we are still exposed to the towers and use by other people, not just in public places but in hotels, office buildings, restaurants, apartment buildings, and almost all high density areas where people are using phones. Obviously, industry can make safer products but will they be obligated to do so? This is where safety and leadership begin and avarice ends.

Elsewhere in the World

You know I travel a lot: Sagittarius Moon in the ninth house! Some places I have gone have been unusually stressful. Two stand out as horrendously challenging: Las Vegas and St. Louis. The quality of the water was so bad that no food even tasted normal, not even rice. My skin burned in the showers in hotels and my lungs hurt from the vapor. Now, compare this to the four trips to Ecuador where there were no nuclear power plants, no chemtrails, and no GMO crops. Even with the chlorinated water, I could experience more vigor because some pervasive stressors were absent.

There is a lot more that can be done to reduce stress. Air travel today is a bloody nightmare. The equipment at the airport is dangerous, invasive, and probably 99% useless. It ought to be possible to issue something like an identity card with image for frequent fliers and people with spotless records. It would speed up the tiresome lines and reduce exposure to harmful frequencies.

Note, up to this point, I have not mentioned many specific medical conditions. The reason is that stress is at the roots of what goes wrong so the more stress we can eliminate, the healthier we would be. This would reduce the burdens on all health care systems. Otherwise, all health care providers need to plan for countless more incarnations treating the effects of today's insanity.

When it comes to health care itself, I am opposed to socialized medicine mainly on the grounds of what is and is not covered and its infringement on choice, both the freedom to use my income as I choose and the freedom to choose the type of care I prefer. I do not grant the government authority over my body or soul. I think the government has the right to quarantine individuals who are potentially carriers of very dangerous infectious diseases, like Ebola. If the disease is transmissible only by blood transfusions and intimacy with the carrier, that is another matter. The government has the duty to require blood banks to test all blood used in transfusions for every disease known to be spread via transfusions. This is not presently the case nor is blood ozonated, something that might cost a penny a liter. Why are we pinching pennies?

Ignoring Evidence

When small, my father said something to the effect that statistics are like bikinis, what they reveal is obvious and what they conceal is vital. I don't remember the reason for this quip, but I worked for the government for four years and saw how numbers are manipulated. So, taking this forward a bit, we could ask if proximity to cell towers increases the risk of cancer. Despite the efforts to hide the facts, it seems that there are correlations between cell towers and cancer. Repeated exposure increases the incidence of cancer by four times and the cancer develops at an earlier age, such as ten years earlier than "expected" so while we can never study something in complete isolation, I can confirm that I am seeing more and more cancer among younger persons and a tremendous increase not only in brain cancer but cancers of the throat and tongue. Moreover, whereas some cancers, even brain cancer, used to be relatively easy to treat, let's say as compared to ovarian cancer, they are now much harder to treat. This might be because the blood-brain barrier is breached by electromagnetic assaults.

Take any disease and ask what the approved protocols are and then check to determine the efficacy of each. If you like detective work, you can also see who benefits. Obviously, the pharmaceutical companies benefit big time. Hospital chains also benefit, but do patients benefit?

As someone who has visited countless clinics and read thousands of books on various treatments, my conclusion is that even when treatments are covered by insurance, there is no guarantee that the treatments will benefit the patient. Worse, it is almost certain that if there were a genuine breakthrough in medicine, the hurdles involved in making the treatment available are just monumental. Fast tracking approval is usually just a euphemism for allowing dangerous and untested drugs to be released without proper testing.

Not every country is as bad as the U.S., and some countries do perform independent analyses of vaccines and drugs before allowing import. Their findings are often shameful. So what is the solution?

Modifications to Present Procedures

First of all, there must be consequences for covering up dangers as well as meaningful protection for whistleblowers. All exemptions for liability should be revoked. Deregulation is even more dangerous where health is concerned than s the case with banking.

Secondly, all patients with incurable conditions should have unrestricted access to any treatment from any country that promises even a tiny bit of hope. Some countries allow this. Ideally, any diagnosis that is serious should have the same open door to experiment. What is the purpose of attending university for years unless it is to study. After graduating, some doctors continue their studies, and yet they are not to be trusted to share their knowledge? Once upon time, they passed highly competitive exams to gain entrance to medical colleges; but after graduating, their judgment has to be circumscribed by a bunch of bureaucrats? How nonsensical is this? Sure there are corrupt doctors, but there are also geniuses.

Thirdly, something like Yang's universal basic income can also be considered compensation for damages for being exposed to chemtrails and biological weapons experiments. We all deserve this. Americans have no idea how much they have suffered because of reckless empowerment of sociopaths and psychopaths in industry and government. Think of all the health problems that could and should have been avoided and all the loved ones lost in endless wars on other countries. I don't think any politician will win by campaigning against the military, but the military-industrial complex is out of control and funds need to be reallocated to constructive efforts. All budgets need to be readjusted so that deep healing and recovery of destinies is possible.

Over the years, I have been consulted by a number of alternative insurance companies. There were some highly creative suggestions, such as a flat sum pay out at the time of diagnosis. Cut a check for $50,000. The patient can use it however wanted. Take the family on a vacation or travel to a foreign country for treatments that are prohibited here. It can be used for conventional or alternative treatment, no questions asked. The amount paid would depend on the diagnosis. In a way, this represents freedom, but if one had to buy insurance and make premium payments, there was still interference in personal discretion over how to use one's income, and I oppose this.

Full Coverage

In my opinion, some conditions should be instantly covered in full, and I will explain why. Starting with AIDS, we have a communicable disease that poses a risk to others. There are many studies covering the origins of the virus, even studies saying there is no such disease, but we all know that many have died. The way the disease was initially spread appears to have been via hepatitis B vaccines so all victims should be compensated, no questions asked. No one should have to win a class action law suit before coverage is awarded. Everyone should be covered immediately.

The same is true of simian virus 40 and Lyme disease. Both are communicable and arose because of activities that failed to protect the public. In the case of SV40, it was apparently transmitted by contaminated polio vaccines. When the contamination was discovered, there was an inventory of two million doses that should have been destroyed but the contaminated batches were dispensed, not destroyed.

Excess exposure to radiation: pay up.

Autism and Alzheimer's are very high cost in terms of the impact on lives. As Yang has implied in his campaign, his wife is at home with their autistic son. I do not think any young couple getting married is prepared to have their dreams disrupted by the high maintenance requirements of an autistic child. At this time in history, doctors with cures are being assassinated or jailed and this is not a suitable response to an international crisis.

Alzheimer's disease happens usually at the other end of life. People work, they save, they have plans for retirement, only to end up in some horribly run assisted living facility where their real medical needs are not addressed. Yes, someone may help them to get dressed but what about getting well? At the first signs of cognitive loss or physical decline, patients should be provided the option of a going to a wellness center specializing in detoxification. Excess exposure to mercury, pay up!

We have such places for alcoholics, but why not for everyone who is not functioning optimally?

This is not a barefoot doctor alternative to serious medicine. It is a therapy that might benefit people who are on the verge of being warehoused rather than cured. For similar reasons, anyone on a waiting list for a transplant should be offered alternative health support immediately. We have no idea what detoxification and rejuvenative medicine can accomplish unless we try to help people while they wait. The patients have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

You note that for the most part, I have so far only mentioned conditions associated with general risks to which all are exposed. I included AIDS because even if spread because of life style choices, infection with the disease itself appears to have occurred through human interventions that, if known, would have failed safety tests. AIDS is alleged to be spread by unprotected sex, sharing of IV needles, and blood transfusions, but this list is probably not complete. One of my students died of a blood transfusion administered during surgery. All her expenses should have been covered. Better yet, the blood used in the transfusion should have been tested before use.


In general, I feel that health is a personal responsibility, but this assumes our environment and legalized medical practices do not pose a risk. Public issues include all infectious diseases, but the U.S. almost always begins by insisting there is no problem. When there is no problem, there is no blame. When the allegations are deemed to be valid, there are usually law suits, always expensive and lengthy; and when guilt is determined, the cases are appealed because the defenders have very deep pockets. Shifting the financial burden of illnesses caused by lax practices is fair. It would be even more humane if the option of checking into specialized facilities for detoxification and regeneration were readily available, and more humane yet if non-invasive and non-toxic treatments were tried before putting people through irreversible procedures.

Okay, dream on . . . this is just the beginning! What should perhaps be added is that we have to look at what might happen is everything mentioned in this essay is kicked under the rug. What if safety is ignored and there is no price to pay for inadequate precautionary measures? Do we think industry will produce more effective medicine if there are no consequences for risky and often ineffective drugs? Personally, I do not see this happening without an outcry!

Many blessings,




Copyright by Ingrid Naiman 2019





Seventh Ray Press
Copyright by Ingrid Naiman 2019

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