“Some people” choose to look after themselves and their own health because it is their right to do so without interference from politicians and health czars. Following the Covid tyranny, it won't be surprising to see more people doing it.

However, it is probably best if they keep it to themselves, and not try to help other people, most of whom will turn on them, as this author has found. You cannot help people who don't want to be helped: people enslaved to Big Brother and the welfare state that runs their lives - even their most personal lives.

Don't waste time on them. Do what is best for you.

Melissa Karydas’ conspiracy-laden article relies entirely on anecdotal evidence that does not hold up under scrutiny.

The most likely (and evidence-based) explanations for her personal story are:

-a delayed effect of conventional treatment;
-spontaneous remission (as rare as this is);
-misdiagnosis or overstated aggressiveness.

Karydas’s criticism of ignores the substantial data proving these treatments save lives. Yes, these therapies can be harsh, but the risks are well-documented and weighed against the benefits.

Her claim that environmental toxins are the primary cause of cancer also lacks specificity and credible evidence. The increase in cancer rates is better explained by ageing populations and improved detection methods.

Her assertion that holistic treatments are harmless is misleading. Firstly, they’re not always harmless; secondly, they don’t have the same levels of testing or regulation for us to know for sure if they’re harmless. Sometimes they have contraindications.

The real danger lies in delaying or avoiding proven therapies in favour of unproven alternatives, which can allow the cancer to progress unchecked. She also misrepresents cancer drug statistics by cherry-picking data - something that seems to happen a lot around here.

Karydas' dismissal of mainstream medicine as corrupt and driven by pharmaceutical profits veers into conspiracy territory. Yes, there are legitimate concerns about the pharmaceutical industry, but they don’t negate the decades of peer-reviewed research backing conventional treatments. Her appeal to tradition is flawed and fallacious. Historical use is not a substitute for scientific validation.

Karydas's misinformation is dangerous. Publishing this kind of rubbish is irresponsible.

I think that John has pointed out the main risk of alternative therapies. While it might be harmless, although some are potentially harmful, the impact of an alternative therapy delaying conventional therapy can be disastrous

Well written, Melissa! You are spot on. And hopefully your courage in speaking up against the power of vested interests will encourage others to do the same. We should all have the right to explore holistic health treatments if we wish to do so without being howled down by the unquestioning mob.

As you've pointed out, we are now inundated with environmental toxins and they are indeed taking a huge toll on both our mental and physical wellbeing. Statistics show rates of neurological and chronic disease are increasing at alarming rates. Children are suffering from diabetes, obesity, cancer, allergies, food intolerances, autism, ADHD, depression, anxiety and more in a way that was totally unheard of six or seven decades ago. And no, improved diagnosis and longer life spans do not explain these trends.

Pesticides, herbicides, synthetic fertilisers, plastics, polluted air, contaminated water, lifeless soils, factory farming, pharmaceuticals, vaccines, electromagnetic radiation ... the toxic chemical cocktail we're all subjected to is slowly poisoning us all. Like the frog in the boiling water, it happens slowly and insidiously and most don't notice until it's too late. It takes effort and expense to minimise exposure, but that's what we need to do if we're to maintain good health.

Thanks for sharing your experience, Melissa ... and your research. All power to your pen!

Anything good that a naturopath does is not special, and anything special that a naturopath does is not good.

Words to live by, and I can't emphasise the word "live" there enough.

From the perspective of tangible curing results, the performance of both medical doctors and naturopaths are mediocre on average.

This is generally not necessarily because there is anything wrong with the practitioners or their disciplines, but because, without realising it, many people subconsciously do not want to be cured.

There are many reasons why people choose one kind of treatment over the other, including financial considerations, scheduling, family pressures and social expectations: only few choose rationally and objectively after thoroughly researching what is more likely to relieve their particular physical ailment.

Other than the above, when something goes "wrong" with one's body, many others choose according to their world-view: those who believe in wilfull human endeavour tend to choose medical doctors while those who believe in harmony with nature tend to choose naturopaths.

This is all well, nothing wrong about either: one's body may not get cured anyway, but by freely choosing according to one's particular philosophy, at least they get to express their world-view and faith - and even if their body is not cured, freely choosing in line with their philosophy makes them happy anyway and eases their mental/emotional woes, which after all are the greater pain.