The article could become a classic primer, because it contains many of
the traditional elements of pseudoscience and medical quackery:

anecdote ("It happened to me!")
cures many different incurable illnesses
celebrity endorsement
ignored scientist, working outside the mainstream
blind orthodoxy
simple answer to a complex question
repression by big pharma (the domain name "www.nonpharmaceutical.com"
is a clue)
patent not publication
"natural"
works with animals (so not a placebo effect)
very clever scientist (only six people in Australia understand him)
etc
I don't have the space here for a full response to the article, but I
will leave you with this thought. What is your opinion of someone who
talks about chemistry but thinks that mineral water with "a low pH"
would be useful in the battle against acidity? If you don't know, ask a
chemist.