If you read the Google reviews for AIM Natural, it becomes clear that Sheba Roy appears to put profit before patient care. The average licensed doctor in Michigan earns $115,486 annually, equating to about $55.52 per hour. In contrast, Sheba Roy, an unlicensed practitioner in Michigan, charges an astonishing $400 per hour. On top of that, she imposes a 3% credit card surcharge, ensuring that even basic transaction fees don’t cut into her earnings.

Roy profits further by recommending medications she sells directly, raising serious ethical concerns. When a practitioner earns money from the treatments they prescribe, it creates a potential conflict of interest—choosing profitability over patient welfare. While it’s one thing for individuals to agree to high fees, Roy’s patients are often desperate, gravely ill, and willing to pay anything for hope, making them especially vulnerable. This situation echoes the predatory tactics of the 1980s, where fraudulent AIDS “cures” preyed on victims of a devastating illness.

One particularly troubling case highlights how AIM Natural’s billing practices raise red flags. A patient asked a question about COVID-19, which was answered, and explicitly requested no further follow-up. Despite this, Jeffrey Mensah from AIM Natural called the patient unsolicited, repeating the same information multiple times. The patient, trying to be polite despite being late for work, didn’t think much of it—until they received an $80 bill for the call. There was no prior agreement or mention of fees for unsolicited calls, and telehealth guidelines were not met. No other doctor charges for unsolicited phone calls in this manner.

Things escalated when AIM Natural “audited” the patient’s account, claiming to have forgotten to bill for past sessions. They charged the patient’s credit card nearly $1,000 without providing ample time to review the charges. While the patient verified and later paid for those sessions, they disputed the $80 phone call charge with the credit card company. The credit card company ultimately ruled the phone call charge invalid. Roy’s response was shocking—she threatened the patient, falsely claiming that disputing the charge constituted a felony and implied legal repercussions. These intimidation tactics against a vulnerable cancer patient are deeply troubling.

Even more alarming, Roy reportedly told the patient she charges for her time like a lawyer, an absurd comparison given the stark differences in the professions. Compassion, not billing tactics, should be a cornerstone of patient care. The negative reviews and reports of billing disputes suggest that this pattern isn’t an isolated incident. While Roy claimed to the patient that they were her first-ever dispute, her detailed knowledge of credit card dispute rules suggests otherwise. One removed review described a similar story: Roy promised to refund a disputed amount if the patient ended the dispute, claiming it wasn’t about the money but about avoiding credit card penalties and the harm that would come to the vulnerable population she takes care of if AIM Natural lost thier ability to charge credit cards. That patient complied—and never received their promised refund.

This pattern of intimidation, deception, and profiteering at the expense of vulnerable patients raises serious ethical concerns. Roy’s practices should give any potential patient pause, especially those navigating life-threatening conditions where trust and integrity are paramount.