LOL, I know, but that was fun.
I'm all for alternatives, but they should be scientifically tested. If you read the article I linked, a lot of it is based on anecdotal stories. Without proper testing, you don't know if those medicines really help. You don't know that they aren't doing harm either.
Have you EVER read the side effects of many modern western medicines?
Death is one of the common listings.
Science, ultimately is statistics. You certainly can know if those medicines really help YOU. Scientific statistics is just necessary to know if they are likely to help a given population to a given percentage under certain conditions.
And you can make an educated guess whether something will help you or hurt you, based on all of the information available about the subject. From the point of view of the patient, it's the same as making an educated decision about trusting an MD.
It's a big world, and we're all responsible for our own decisions. I just think it would be better if it stayed that way. Because when indemnified bureaucrats are responsible for decisions, no one is responsble for decisions.