Modern healthcare is full of contradictions. On one hand, it’s a high-performing economic powerhouse—one of the most profitable and resilient sectors globally. On the other, it’s overseeing a population that is, by many measures, becoming sicker. Chronic disease rates are rising. Preventable illnesses are commonplace. And yet, healthcare spending continues to grow. This tension raises a difficult question: what is the healthcare system built for? At face value, the answer seems obvious—healthcare exists to improve health and reduce disease. But when we look deeper, a more complex picture emerges. The healthcare industry isn’t a single entity with a unified mission. It’s made up of many stakeholders with competing priorities. Public systems, families, and frontline workers are driven by outcomes—they want to see healthier people. But private capital, which funds large portions of modern healthcare, is driven by return on investment. These two motivations—health and profit—don’t always align. And increasingly, the gap between them is shaping the way care is delivered. Acute medicine—emergency care, surgery, trauma—is a shining success. People are surviving conditions that once would have been fatal, thanks to decades of innovation and evidence-based practice. But when we turn our attention to chronic disease and prevention, the system falters. Rates of obesity, diabetes, autoimmune conditions, and even early-onset cancers are climbing. And while the system is adept at managing these diseases, it rarely prevents or cures them. Why is that? Because prevention and cure, while profoundly valuable for individuals and society, aren’t always good business. A condition that can be managed for life generates more revenue than one that is reversed or prevented altogether. The incentives are skewed—and the outcomes reflect that reality. We see it in how public health campaigns are underfunded. In how research dollars chase treatments, not cures. In the normalisation of “chronic disease management” as the endpoint of care. And we see it in how easily the conversation shifts blame to individuals for lifestyle-related illness, ignoring the toxic environments and systemic drivers that shape those outcomes. This is not to suggest some grand conspiracy—only that the system is behaving exactly as it’s designed to. It performs exceptionally well for investors and shareholders. But for patients, especially those hoping to avoid or reverse disease, it often delivers disappointment. It offers little in the way of wellness promotion or health optimisation. It’s time to ask whether this model still serves us – and if it has the moral and scientific underpinnings to impose behaviour on autonomous adults. If we want different outcomes—healthier people, fewer chronic conditions, longer lives in better states—we need to align healthcare’s incentives with health itself. That means rethinking how we fund, evaluate, and deliver care. It means investing in prevention, environmental health, and cellular science—not just pharmaceuticals and procedures. The future of healthcare may just depend on the removal of this profit motive.

For decades, Nicotinamide N-Methyltransferase (NNMT) flew under the radar—regarded as a minor player in cellular metabolism. But science evolves, and so does our understanding of metabolic regulation. Today, NNMT is rapidly gaining attention as a critical mediator of energy balance, epigenetics, and age-related disease processes. NNMT is a cytosolic enzyme that catalyzes the methylation of nicotinamide—an active form of vitamin B3—using S-adenosylmethionine (SAM) as the methyl donor. This seemingly simple reaction has profound implications. First, it alters the fate of nicotinamide, reducing its availability for conversion into NAD+, the pivotal coenzyme involved in energy metabolism and cellular signalling. Second, it consumes methyl groups, subtly draining the cell’s epigenetic currency and altering gene expression at a global level. Inside the cell, NNMT occupies a strategic position where energy regulation and epigenetic signaling intersect. By modulating nicotinamide levels, it interferes with the NAD+ salvage pathway, which not only compromises energy metabolism but also affects mitochondrial function and the activity of NAD+-dependent enzymes like the sirtuins. These enzymes are central to cell survival, longevity, and metabolic health. Simultaneously, NNMT alters methyl group availability by drawing down SAM, the primary methyl donor in countless epigenetic reactions. As a result, the methylation potential of the cell is reduced, influencing which genes are switched on or off. Beyond these roles, NNMT appears to participate in detoxification and redox homeostasis. Several studies have linked its activity to modulation of oxidative stress and inflammation, suggesting a broader role in cellular resilience and immune regulation (Hong et al., 2015; Gao et al., 2021). What makes NNMT particularly compelling is its behavior in disease states. Overexpression of NNMT has been consistently observed in obesity and metabolic syndrome. In adipose tissue, upregulated NNMT disrupts energy balance, contributing to reduced NAD+ levels and altered mitochondrial efficiency, which in turn drives weight gain and insulin resistance (Kraus et al., 2014). In oncology, NNMT is often found elevated in tumors, where it facilitates cancer progression by shifting the metabolic and epigenetic landscape of the cell. High levels of NNMT have been reported in cancers of the breast, lung, and colon, and are associated with poor prognosis, increased invasiveness, and resistance to chemotherapy (Ulanovskaya et al., 2013). In the brain, abnormal NNMT activity has been linked to neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, possibly via its effects on NAD+ availability and cellular methylation status (Parviz et al., 2022). NNMT also contributes to fibrotic and inflammatory processes, with evidence of its upregulation in liver fibrosis (especially non-alcoholic steatohepatitis), kidney disease, and pulmonary fibrosis (Roberti et al., 2020). Given its wide-ranging influence, NNMT is being explored as a therapeutic target. Inhibiting NNMT may rebalance NAD+ metabolism, restore methylation capacity, and even reprogram pathological gene expression. Animal studies have shown promising results. Among the most studied inhibitors is 5-Amino-1MQ, a small molecule that improves NAD+ levels, enhances mitochondrial activity, and promotes energy expenditure. It has shown preclinical potential in models of obesity, sarcopenia, and insulin resistance (Brachs et al., 2019). Other NNMT inhibitors in development include NNMT-IN-1 and NNMT-IN-2, both of which show anti-proliferative effects in cancer models. Researchers are also investigating nicotinamide analogues that act as competitive inhibitors of NNMT and could support NAD+ preservation. Although still in early stages, several natural compounds such as berberine and certain polyphenols may exert indirect effects on NNMT expression or function, though further validation is required (Xu et al., 2021). As interest in longevity medicine grows—spanning NAD+ restoration, epigenetic modulation, and inflammation control—NNMT has become a metabolic bottleneck enzyme worth watching. From fat loss to neuroprotection and metabolic reprogramming, targeting NNMT may soon form part of the broader strategy to delay ageing and reverse chronic disease. For clinicians, researchers, and biohackers alike, understanding NNMT could be the missing piece in the evolving puzzle of cellular optimisation. References: Kraus, D., Yang, Q., Kong, D., et al. (2014). Nicotinamide N-methyltransferase knockdown protects against diet-induced obesity. Nature, 508(7495), 258–262. Ulanovskaya, O. A., Zuhl, A. M., Cravatt, B. F. (2013). NNMT promotes epigenetic remodeling in cancer by creating a metabolic methylation sink. Nature Chemical Biology, 9(5), 300–306. Brachs, S., Winkel, A. F., Tang, H., et al. (2019). NNMT inhibition increases NAD+ and improves metabolic function in mouse models. Cell Reports, 29(10), 2966–2978.e5. Hong, S., Moreno-Navarrete, J. M., Wei, X., et al. (2015). Nicotinamide N-methyltransferase regulates hepatic nutrient metabolism through Sirt1 protein stabilization. Nature Medicine, 21(8), 887–894. Gao, Y., Chu, S., Li, J., et al. (2021). NNMT promotes redox homeostasis and chemoresistance in cancer cells. Redox Biology, 41, 101916. Roberti, A., Fernández, A. F., Fraga, M. F. (2020). Epigenetics in kidney fibrosis: The role of DNA methylation. Frontiers in Genetics, 11, 604230. Parviz, M., Cassel, S., Jimenez, V. A., et al. (2022). NNMT contributes to cognitive impairment and neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease models. Neurobiology of Disease, 166, 105627. Xu, D., Liu, X., Xu, Y., et al. (2021). Berberine reduces methyl donor depletion by modulating NNMT activity. Phytomedicine, 91, 153690.

Peptide therapy threatens to revolutionise therapeutics — not with noise, but with precision, intelligence, and biocompatibility. It’s a little-known paradigm that differs significantly from the small-molecule pharmaceuticals most of us were trained to use or prescribe. But it’s gaining momentum fast. The word peptide refers to the chemical structure of these molecules: short chains of amino acids. But when we talk about peptide therapy, we’re usually referring to biologically active peptides — small, naturally occurring or bioidentical molecules that function as intracellular messengers. These compounds help promote and regulate cellular homeostasis, often mimicking or restoring functions that degrade with age or illness. Well-known examples include insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) — already widely used in modern medicine. But these are just the tip of the iceberg. Over 7,000 peptides have been identified, many of which show therapeutic promise across various organs, systems, and disease states. What makes them especially exciting is their favorable safety profile. These molecules are well-understood by the body — they’re broken down, reused, or eliminated through familiar pathways. Unlike synthetic chemicals that may trigger unintended downstream effects, peptides typically support existing physiology rather than disrupt it. There are no peptide pathways that inherently damage us. Harm, when it occurs, is usually due to the absence or degradation of these pathways, not their presence. For clinicians, peptide therapy opens an entirely new toolkit — powerful, versatile, and biologically aligned. But it can also be intimidating. Traditional regulatory frameworks, designed around pharmaceutical drug sponsors and large-scale clinical trials, don’t always apply neatly to this new class of compounds. And while large RCTs are limited, there is an ever-growing base of real-world data, experiential knowledge, and clinical insight. The reality is: peptides are already here. In Australia alone, hundreds of thousands of people use peptide-based therapies each year — and our emergency departments are not overwhelmed because of it. These therapies support foundational cellular processes and show broad potential in: Promoting wellness and prevention Enhancing performance, mental clarity, and sleep Supporting muscle growth, fat loss, and metabolic health Reducing inflammation and promoting tissue repair Acting as true anti-aging agents by restoring physiological function Peptides are not “anti-medicines.” They’re not disruptive. They are pro-health, pro-repair, and pro-optimisation — exactly what the modern patient is asking for. Of course, safe and effective use requires proper training. Understanding peptide families, their mechanisms, indications, contraindications, and regulatory status is essential.   MedBridge Global Academy provides structured, accredited education in peptide therapy — designed by clinicians, for clinicians. Our certification program is tailored to give you the confidence, knowledge, and framework to integrate these powerful therapies into your clinical practice safely and effectively.

None of the villains self-identify as such.  There is a fundamental injustice at the heart of healthcare regulation. Like all injustices, it stems from a mismatch between rights and responsibilities. Those who hold power often lack the responsibility (accountability) to use it wisely, while those who bear the responsibility for outcomes frequently lack the power to influence them meaningfully. In times gone by they referred to the ‘whipping boy’.  This asymmetry can distort everything.  Is it acceptable to justify poor outcomes on the basis of following process and procedure? Conversely, is it ever justifiable to breach established processes in pursuit of a good outcome? These aren’t abstract philosophical questions—they’re daily realities for clinicians working under regulatory scrutiny. And then there’s the deeper layer: ethics and morality. The doctor–patient relationship has, for centuries, been considered sacred. It is rooted in mutual trust, shared decision-making, and an intimacy that’s unique in professional life. When outcomes are poor, it is the clinician—and in ultimate instance, the patient—who must bear that responsibility. But when regulators inject themselves into this space, the balance is disrupted. They shape decision-making but rarely share responsibility for the consequences. In theory, they exist to protect the public. In practice, they impose external distant supervision over an intimate process, altering behaviour and management while bearing no accountability for outcomes.  This causes harm.  And while we may not be able to fix it entirely, we must at least acknowledge it. Rarely do we speak openly in the profession about the negative impact of regulatory involvement on clinical outcomes—nor about the quiet fear and intimidation many clinicians feel when faced with opaque, punitive systems that are more focused on compliance than care. More focused on process than outcomes. We intuitively understand this phenomenon – it is not foreign to us. A priest in a parish can offer profound and compassionate care. But add layers of bureaucracy, gold-trimmed authority, and detached governance—and the religious institution becomes cold, internally focused, dis-interested in outcomes, even complicit in suffering. This is an apt metaphor for modern healthcare regulators.  No where do regulators take responsibility for the explosion in chronic degenerative disease affecting adults. Let alone Children.   Yes, their leaders espouse and self-identify with diversity and inclusion – no one debates this. But they wield the coercive power of the state – Weber’s ‘monopoly on violence’. A world where those who make and enforce the rules, are responsible for the outcomes. How much is a one way ticket?

Medicinal Cannabis is no longer on the fringe. Chronic pain, anxiety, insomnia, epilepsy, and palliative care support are amongst a growing list of evidence-based recommendations for this natural therapeutic modality. Over the past decade, it has transformed from a controversial therapy into a science backed treatment option. Regulators are responding to the demand from patients and the weight of the evidence, albeit to slowly for some people. Yet despite its legal status and rising public acceptance, access remains a challenging in the Australian context. Clinical Education, or more importantly the lack of it, is a key barrier to access. Medicinal cannabis is unlike most pharmaceutical products. It contains over 200 active constituents, and the effects they produce in concert is referred to as the entourage effect. The entourage effect refers to the synergistic interaction between the many active compounds in cannabis—primarily cannabinoids (like THC and CBD), terpenes, and flavonoids—which together may enhance the therapeutic effects of the plant beyond what isolated compounds can achieve. So instead of just focusing on a single molecule (e.g. pure CBD or THC), the entourage effect suggests that whole-plant or broad-spectrum extracts may provide broader or more effective outcomes due to this natural synergy. This biochemical complexity demands that prescribers understand not just clinical indications, but also product selection, dosing, titration, formulation differences, and patient safety considerations. Add to this a complicated and ‘paperwork intensive’ regulatory framework, and it becomes clear why many healthcare professionals remain hesitant to prescribe. Since the legalisation of MC in Australia in 2016 following a parliamentary inquiry, prescribing has increased significantly. However, the pathways to access remain bureaucratically burdensome. Currently, prescribers must either apply through the Special Access Scheme (SAS-B) or become Authorised Prescribers (AP) via the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). SAS-B applications must be submitted on a per-patient, per-product basis—making it time-consuming and inefficient for busy general practitioners. The AP scheme, while more streamlined, is geared toward high-frequency prescribers and carries administrative requirements that can be off-putting for clinicians treating only a handful of patients with cannabis. As a result, many GPs—despite patient demand and clinical appropriateness—do not engage with prescribing MC at all. And patients are left navigating a fragmented system that often requires travel, long wait times, and out-of-pocket costs. This is where education becomes essential. Targeted, CPD-accredited training that draws on both local regulatory knowledge and international best practice can empower clinicians to navigate the system confidently. Educational providers that offer structured certification pathways—including regulatory guidance, case-based learning, and clinical decision-making tools—can bridge the gap between biomedical science and real-world implementation. With better education, prescribers gain not only the tools to prescribe responsibly but also the confidence to advocate for appropriate patient access—helping to normalise medicinal cannabis as a legitimate, evidence-based component of modern care. To truly improve access, Australia needs more than just legislative support—we need a cultural and clinical shift, underpinned by education. The future of medicinal cannabis in Australia will not be driven by hype or politics, but by informed, certified and capable healthcare professionals.  Martin, S., Jansen, S., Toole, A., & Ward, A. (2025). Exploring access to medicinal cannabis through general practitioners in Australia. Australian Journal of General Practice, 54(3). https://doi.org/10.31128/AJGP-02-24-7155 https://www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2025/march/exploring-access-to-medicinal-cannabis-through-gen

A recent French study has confirmed what many in functional and integrative medicine have long suspected: high-dose vitamin D supplementation significantly reduces disease activity in early multiple sclerosis (MS).   The D-Lay MS trial, the largest of its kind, demonstrated that patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS)—the earliest detectable stage of MS—experienced a statistically significant delay in disease progression when treated with vitamin D. Disease activity, defined by relapse or MRI findings, occurred in only 60.3% of the vitamin D group compared to 74.1% of the placebo group. That’s a 14% absolute risk reduction and a median delay in disease activity of over 200 days, with no increase in adverse events.   This is not a fringe finding—it is a meaningful clinical outcome with major implications for early MS management.   Vitamin D and MS: A Long-Standing Hypothesis, Now Validated   Vitamin D has long been implicated in the pathogenesis of MS. Low serum vitamin D levels are associated with both increased risk of MS and higher disease activity. Despite this, previous trials had produced mixed results—often due to heterogeneous patient populations, inconsistent dosing, or study design limitations.   The D-Lay trial overcame these issues by: Focusing on CIS patients (the earliest, most modifiable phase of MS) Administering a high dose (100,000 IU every two weeks) of cholecalciferol Using well-defined, MRI-confirmed criteria for disease activity The result? Statistically significant reductions in all MRI-based markers of MS activity and a well-tolerated safety profile, even at high doses.   What Functional Practitioners Have Known All Along   While the conventional field has awaited large trials to validate vitamin D, functional medicine practitioners have been early adopters of this strategy—based on its: Benign side effect profile Widespread deficiency across populations Plausible mechanistic role in neuroinflammation, immune regulation, and myelin protection In practice, we’ve seen patients with fatigue, autoimmune tendencies, and cognitive complaints improve under careful vitamin D repletion. Now, we have rigorous data showing its utility in one of the most feared neuroimmune disorders.   Implications for Clinical Practice   This study reinforces that early intervention matters—not just with pharmaceuticals, but with targeted nutritional strategies. It also raises questions about why vitamin D screening and correction isn’t standard of care in all patients at risk of neuroinflammatory disease. How much more effective is corrective or even supraphysiological supplementation of vitamin D prior to the onset of distressing symptoms?   The findings highlight the importance of: Routine vitamin D testing in patients with neurological symptoms or autoimmune risk Therapeutic supplementation when levels are <100 nmol/L (and especially <30 nmol/L) Integrating nutritional and lifestyle strategies alongside conventional care Education Is Key to Implementation   Despite the positive outcomes, many clinicians remain hesitant to prescribe high-dose vitamin D—often due to outdated safety concerns or a lack of education in nutritional therapeutics. This is where accredited education and practical guidance can close the gap. Understanding how to assess, dose, monitor, and educate patients on nutrient-based interventions is a critical skill for all healthcare professionals—and essential for bringing accessible, low-risk therapies into broader clinical use.   The D-Lay MS trial isn’t just a win for vitamin D—it’s a win for evidence-based preventive medicine. It reminds us that safe, affordable, and widely accessible treatments like vitamin D can play a central role in managing complex diseases—especially when applied early and appropriately. As the conversation around MS evolves, vitamin D should no longer be optional—it should be fundamental.   Thouvenot E, Laplaud D, Lebrun-Frenay C, et al. High-Dose Vitamin D in Clinically Isolated Syndrome Typical of Multiple Sclerosis: The D-Lay MS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. Published online March 10, 2025. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.1604

Australia’s healthcare system is burdened not by a lack of talent or resources, but by an increasingly suffocating layer of bureaucracy. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), AHPRA, and state health departments—once intended as stewards of public safety—have morphed into self-replicating ecosystems more focused on regulating process than improving outcomes. Our patients are sicker than ever. Chronic disease, mental illness, metabolic disorders, and autoimmune conditions are rising year on year. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), nearly half of all Australians now live with a chronic condition, and those numbers are climbing. Meanwhile, health expenditure has never been higher, yet patient wellbeing continues to decline. Something is clearly broken. Instead of confronting this uncomfortable truth, regulators have doubled down on paperwork, permissions, and performative oversight. Bureaucrats seem to exist to justify their own existence—reinforcing a system of approvals, restrictions, and reporting that adds little to patient outcomes but plenty to clinician fatigue. The TGA continues to drag its feet on innovative therapies unless they follow a rigid pharmaceutical model. AHPRA, rather than supporting innovation and protecting practitioners acting in good faith, has created a culture of fear and silence. State health departments are more focused on compliance metrics than community health. And all of them are obsessed with process over purpose. But tightening the screws on a failing system doesn’t repair it. We are labouring under a healthcare paradigm that isn’t working. We are not promoting health. We are not preventing or curing disease. We are managing illness—often poorly—and calling it care. That is not what our patients want. That is not what our communities need. And it is certainly not cost-effective. We need courage. Courage to admit the system is not fit for purpose. Courage to welcome evidence-based innovation, even when it doesn’t come wrapped in traditional pharmaceutical packaging. Courage to restore a focus on health, healing, and the potential of people—not just their pathology. We don’t need more regulators. We need a new vision. One that puts health—not bureaucracy—at the centre of Australian healthcare.

We typically reserve the term “epidemic” for outbreaks of infectious disease—something contagious and acute. The real epidemic of our time isn’t viral at all – it is chronic. The rates of chronic disease are rising everywhere. Diabetes, cancer, dementia, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative conditions are becoming not only more common—but they’re showing up earlier, with patients diagnosed at younger and younger ages.  According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), around 47% of Australians have at least one chronic condition, with many experiencing two or more. These diseases are now responsible for more than 9 in every 10 deaths in Australia. And the trends are not improving. Between 2000 and 2020, the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes more than doubled, and dementia has become the second leading cause of death, surpassing strokes and even lung cancer. The situation with obesity is even more striking. More than two-thirds (67%) of Australian adults are overweight or obese, a figure that has been climbing steadily for decades. Worryingly, childhood obesity is also on the rise, with 1 in 4 children aged 5–17 now classified as overweight or obese [AIHW, 2023]. This is important, because obesity is a key driver in the emergence of many other chronic diseases. This cannot be brushed off as a side effect of an aging population. We are witnessing younger individuals—some in their 30s—being diagnosed with conditions previously associated with late adulthood. Infertility rates are surging. Testosterone levels in men are declining globally, with research from the U.S. showing a 1% annual decline since the 1980s, a trend echoed in Australia. At the same time, diagnoses of ADHD, autism, and other neurodivergent conditions are increasing rapidly among children and adolescents. Allergies, autoimmune diseases, and previously unheard-of conditions like eosinophilic oesophagitis are becoming disturbingly common. Extrapolating these trends leads to some very alarming conclusions. Despite this health landscape, governments and public health agencies continue to pour trillions of dollars annually into healthcare—largely into the management of disease, not its prevention or cure. They invest time and effort in tightening regulatory oversight – but no where are the causes of this epidemic addressed or even contemplated The result? The epidemic continues unabated. The current paradigm, which prioritises chronic medical management, is failing to halt the rise of disease. Worse still, it may be normalising illness as an inevitable part of life. Some experts argue that the focus on managing chronic disease has pushed prevention into the background and made the concept of cure feel almost taboo. But people don’t want endless prescriptions, side-effect balancing acts, or lifelong appointments. People want to feel better. They want to reduce their risk of disease. If they get sick, they want to get well. Chronic medication management should be a last resort, not the system’s default. We need a radical shift. We need to face the failure of the current paradigm. There is no lack of emerging therapies that can prioritises prevention, reversal, and regeneration over the mere lifetime symptom suppression. A system that invests in metabolic health, environmental health, mental health, and the social determinants that underpin real wellbeing. The chronic disease epidemic isn’t just a medical issue—it’s a cultural, economic, and systemic failure. And if we want to change the outcome, we must first admit that the current approach is not working.

We are living through an era of unprecedented chronic disease. Adults and children alike are becoming sicker, younger, and more frequently. Conditions like obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, and mental health challenges are growing steadily, year on year. Our healthcare system, however, seems locked into an outdated paradigm—one focused not on health, but on disease management. The science supporting a focus on health and wellness rather than disease management is vast – but it faces barriers to implementation at the doctor patient level. Modern medicine, as it currently operates, excels at intervention but falters at prevention. It is oriented around acute care, pharmaceuticals, and lifelong management plans. We are keeping people alive, yes—but often at the cost of their vitality, independence, and quality of life. It’s a system that accepts illness as inevitable, chronic disease as uncurable, and wellness as secondary. That paradigm has failed. And yet, we are not short on answers. In recent decades, biomedical science has unlocked extraordinary insights into the cellular and environmental drivers of disease. We now understand many of the root mechanisms—oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, immune dysregulation, toxic burden, hormonal disruption—that underpin modern illness. These aren’t vague ideas; they are measurable, quantifiable, and increasingly treatable. Emerging therapies, often used in integrative, functional, or boutique clinical settings, are targeting these mechanisms. Therapies that include nutritional and peptide interventions, microbiome modulation, detoxification protocols, precision supplementation, and regenerative strategies are showing remarkable promise. But they remain largely excluded from mainstream care. Why? Because the system isn’t designed to integrate innovation unless it fits a pharmaceutical, procedural, or highly institutionalised model. Barriers to implementation are everywhere. Regulators remain cautious, sometimes excessively so. Educational institutions continue to train clinicians in outdated frameworks that ignore systems biology and root-cause thinking. Health insurers and funding models reward reactive care, not proactive wellness. And the cultural gatekeepers of medicine often dismiss emerging therapies as fringe—regardless of the evidence. This resistance isn’t just a conservative instinct—it’s become a structural problem. The bodies meant to ensure safety, such as AHPRA, the TGA, and state health departments, are often so focused on risk aversion and process compliance that they’ve become barriers to progress. In their attempts to protect patients from harm, they may also be protecting them from help. To reimagine healthcare in the coming decade, we must stop treating innovation as a threat. We must widen access to safe, evidence-informed, non-traditional therapies and empower a broader range of practitioners—those who are already doing this work on the edges of the system, often at great personal and professional cost. Regulators, educators, and industry must work with clinicians and patients—not against them—to modernise the healthcare model. That means updating clinical guidelines to reflect 21st-century science. It means creating flexible regulatory pathways for emerging and un-orthodox therapies and paradigms. It means funding prevention, and not just management. Above all, it means acknowledging what to many is already clear: many of the answers to health and wellness are already here.