A well-known doctor in Brighton, Dr. Peter Eng, is under investigation by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) for his alternative cancer treatment practices, which include costly therapies such as mistletoe injections. Reports indicate that these treatments can cost patients as much as $90,000. The scrutiny comes after two patients raised concerns about his treatment methods during consultations in late 2023 and early 2025.
Dr. Eng, who has treated a range of notable individuals, including a former chief executive and a retired Supreme Court judge, has faced backlash from over 30 of his patients. They defend him vigorously, claiming that the investigation is unwarranted and akin to a “witch-hunt.” Following the AHPRA inquiry, Dr. Eng is now required to practice under supervision and meet strict conditions to continue offering integrative medicine services.
The investigation began after one patient alleged that Dr. Eng refused to authorize an Iscador injection, a mistletoe extract described by AHPRA as having “uncertain evidence” of its benefits. Instead, he allegedly recommended tests and treatments that would significantly burden her financially. Another patient claimed that Dr. Eng failed to conduct a proper assessment and provided prescriptions that were rejected by a compounding pharmacy.
According to AHPRA, these patients are particularly vulnerable to exploitation, and the treatments recommended by Dr. Eng could offer them “false hope.” The agency has imposed conditions on his practice, which include regular audits focusing on patient consent, assessment, treatment planning, and communication. Additionally, he must work under the supervision of a doctor approved by the Medical Board of Australia.
Many of Dr. Eng’s patients have expressed their discontent with these measures, stating they are “excessive, unfair, and unnecessary.” They argue that the restrictions hinder their access to personalized treatment, which they believe has improved their quality of life. Among his supporters are judges, academics, business leaders, and politicians, including the late Simon Crean.
One patient, a former mining chief executive undergoing treatment for a rare gastrointestinal cancer, praised Dr. Eng’s approach, stating that his treatment has effectively slowed the progression of his disease. “I’m feeling wonderful,” he remarked. “Eng is remarkable. I am very fortunate.”
Another patient, Christine Richards, a former Law Reform Commissioner, criticized the Medical Board for limiting patient choices and targeting Dr. Eng for not adhering to conventional practices. She stated, “It is so unfair.”
Despite the support, some experts have raised concerns about the efficacy of the treatments offered by Dr. Eng. Professor David Vaux, a leading cancer researcher, expressed skepticism about the treatments, noting that if they were effective, they would become accepted as standard medical practice. He cautioned against alternative treatments diverting patients from conventional methods and warned about the potential for raising false expectations.
One of the more expensive components of Dr. Eng’s regimen is what is known as the “Greek test,” designed to analyze cancer cells in a patient’s blood to tailor treatments. Oncologists have raised doubts about the accuracy of this test, further complicating the situation.
In response to the complaints, Dr. Eng has stated that all his treatments are grounded in research and rejected the allegations made to AHPRA. He highlighted that he has faced investigations from AHPRA multiple times over the years, yet the Medical Board has consistently determined that he possesses the necessary knowledge and skills to practice safely.
Dr. Eng explained why he did not administer the mistletoe injection to one patient, citing concerns about potential allergic reactions if administered outside his clinic. He expressed concern over the financial implications of his treatments, noting that many of the necessary substances have to be imported and are not subsidized by the government.
Now, he faces uncertainty regarding the future of his practice and the impact of the imposed sanctions on his patients. “How do I say, ‘Go and die?’ I’m traumatised by that,” he lamented, emphasizing the difficult position he finds himself in. Dr. Eng collaborates with oncologists to optimize his patients’ responses to conventional treatments, particularly those diagnosed with stage 4 cancers.
Integrative medicine combines standard medical practices with complementary treatments considered safe and effective. These can include supplements and nutritional advice. An independent report commissioned by AHPRA highlighted concerns about Dr. Eng’s informed consent process and the justification of his treatment costs, stating that he may be acting as an agent for certain products without sufficient evidence of their efficacy.
Dr. Eng proposed a supervising doctor with experience in integrative medicine, but his request was denied by the Medical Board of Australia. He now fears that finding a suitable supervisor could take over a year, leaving his patients in a precarious situation.
As the situation unfolds, the debate over alternative cancer treatments and the responsibilities of practitioners like Dr. Eng continues to spark significant discussion within the medical community and among patients seeking various treatment options.
