The ABC is still stuck with calling the best of health care, alternative.

"The ABC article explores the tension and interplay between conventional medicine and complementary or alternative therapies in Australia."

Click on the picture below for the ABC article.

The ABC article explores the tension and interplay between conventional medicine and complementary or alternative therapies in Australia. It profiles individuals like Ula Brown, who blended mainstream cancer treatment with alternative therapies, and Sally Catherall, who felt disappointed by curcumin’s lack of effect on her blood cancer. The article highlights the growing interest in integrative approaches, supported by practitioners like Dr. Tamara Nation, but also critiques unregulated claims and high costs associated with alternative treatments. It notes systemic issues such as economic barriers to accessing conventional healthcare and rising interest in herbal medicine for marginalized populations.

The orthodox medical model often focuses on suppressing symptoms rather than addressing root causes. Ula’s characterization of chemotherapy as a “band-aid” highlights this limitation. While effective in managing acute crises, mainstream medicine frequently neglects the underlying contributors to chronic diseases, such as lifestyle, diet, and environmental factors.

Conventional medicine frequently dismisses alternative therapies, focusing on the lack of randomised controlled trials while ignoring long-standing traditional practices and anecdotal evidence. For example, Ula’s recovery may have been enhanced by supplementary therapies, but her experience is discounted without rigorous scientific validation. The exorbitant cost of accessing medical care, highlighted by Tasmania's limited bulk-billing GP clinics, forces individuals to seek affordable alternatives like herbal medicine. Instead of integrating cost-effective natural therapies, the system marginalises them, exacerbating health inequities.

While there is growing interest in integrative medicine, its adoption within mainstream healthcare remains slow. Practitioners like Dr. Emilia Dauway and organizations like Hobart Herbalists Without Borders demonstrate the potential of combining evidence-based complementary therapies with conventional treatments. Yet, the broader system clings to a reductionist model that alienates these approaches. Mainstream medicine’s heavy dependence on pharmaceutical interventions often comes at the expense of exploring holistic and preventive measures. This is evident in the sidelining of lifestyle, nutrition, and psychological support, which should be foundational to treatment. By labeling alternative treatments as “woo” or restricting claims through watchdogs like the TGA, the orthodox system limits patient autonomy. Patients like Ula and Sally illustrate the need for a balanced approach where individuals can make informed decisions without fear of stigma or exploitation.

The tension between conventional and alternative medicine reflects deeper systemic issues in modern healthcare. While mainstream doctors often dismiss alternative therapies as unproven or pseudoscientific, many natural therapies have a sound scientific basis. If conventional medicine were less dismissive and more open to rigorous investigation of these therapies, they could reveal valuable, cost-effective solutions for preventing and treating disease.

Many natural therapies, from herbal medicine to nutritional interventions, are supported by both historical use and emerging scientific research. Substances like curcumin, vitamin C, and omega-3 fatty acids have demonstrated measurable biological effects in laboratory and clinical settings. For example while the article dismisses curcumin as ineffective, numerous studies show its potential as an anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer agent. The issue lies in proper dosing, formulation, and study design—not a lack of efficacy. High-dose vitamin C, often ridiculed, has shown great promise in improving the quality of life and survival in cancer patients under specific conditions. Yet, mainstream research often ignores or undermines these findings.

Natural therapies are not magic cures; they require nuanced understanding and precise application. Instead of wholesale dismissal, they warrant rigorous study—independent of pharmaceutical industry influence. Additionally the credibility of the medical establishment is undermined by conflicts of interest and bias in research. Leading medical journals, including ‘The Lancet’ and ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’, have been criticised for publishing studies with questionable integrity. Dr. Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of ‘The Lancet’, admitted that much of the published medical research is unreliable due to conflicts of interest, selective reporting, and the suppression of negative results.

Big Pharma’s funding dominance compounds this issue. Trials funded by pharmaceutical companies are more likely to report favorable outcomes for their drugs. Negative or inconclusive studies are often buried, leading to an incomplete understanding of drug efficacy and safety. Alternatives that cannot be patented, like herbal remedies or dietary interventions, receive little funding and scant attention.

Reliance on pharmaceutical-funded research demands a much high level of scrutiny than it has in the past. Drugs are often rushed to market, only to reveal serious side effects or marginal efficacy later. This over-reliance diverts attention from preventive measures and natural therapies that could alleviate disease at its root. See my other Substacks for my position on the Covid genetic injections (so-called vaccines). Many chronic conditions—diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and even cancers—could be mitigated through lifestyle and nutritional interventions. However, these low-cost solutions do not generate the profit margins that incentivise Big Pharma’s sickening profitable research agenda.

The ABC article underscores the need for a paradigm shift in healthcare — one that integrates the strengths of both conventional and complementary approaches. The narrow focus of orthodox medicine fails to address the diverse needs of patients, pushing them towards unregulated and costly alternatives. A true patient-centred system must respect individual choices, prioritise preventative care, and embrace a holistic view of health.

By embracing therapies with a strong scientific rationale—whether natural, alternative, or repurposed—we can deliver more effective, affordable, and compassionate care. The dismissal of these options not only limits patient choice but also perpetuates a broken system driven by profits over health. In my opinion, the ABC has been a negative force in our endeavours to create a best of health care system.

Ian Brighthope