Yes its quite interesting.
If even one of the multivarious negative side effects pointed to in this essay were caused by a practitioner of the various form of complementary or "alternative" (non mainstream) healing modalities, there would be a very loud sustained campaign by the mainstream medical establishment to shut the practitioner down, and an attempt to ban or severely restrict their healing modality (and all related modalities too)

If you think that's bad or unfair? Spare a thought for those simply sent home to die, because the only efficacious treatment, nuclear medicine, is officially withheld. Because we don't yet have a sane and rational, nuclear energy policy!

Or those left untreated, because publicly funded medicine is both rationed and has age limits placed on it?

COMPLICATIONS?
Alan B.

Judges should use their own judgement about medical negligence, not solely rely on opinions of doctors. Often, commonsense will be all that's needed to see that doctors have stuffed up, there is no need for reports. The following was said in the High Court in Rogers v Whitaker: "The matters to which reference has been made indicate that the evidence of medical practitioners is of very considerable significance in cases where negligence is alleged in diagnosis or treatment. However, even in cases of that kind, the nature of particular risks and their foreseeability are not matters exclusively within the province of medical knowledge or expertise. Indeed, and notwithstanding that these questions arise in a medical context, they are often matters of simple commonsense. And, at least in some situations, questions as to the reasonableness of particular precautionary measures are also matters of commonsense."