Question:
Alternatives are good to have. Why are concepts like alternative medicine & alternative energy looked down on?

...is the establishment feeling threatened?

Answer: This question is far too complex to argue within a Y/A so this is the question I will answer: Why is the NHS preferred over alternative medicine in the UK? This will result in a more concise answer to the question asked but it is much easier to explain.

The UK has a unique system of tax funding the National Health Service (NHS) which stems from the NHS's birth in 1940's. The 2002 Budget raised national insurance contributions (NICs) to fund a real increase of 43% in NHS spending by 2007/8, thereby raising health expenditure from 6.8% to 9.4% of GDP. This system for funding was not the originator's intention and it was quickly seen as 'unsustainable' from the NHS's conception. The 1950's Conservative Governments sought to reintroduce the insurance based system but the possible advantages of these massive changes to financing the NHS outweighed the costs of doing so. It is important to recognize that the NHS is only part of the health care story others, such as housing are equally, perhaps more important in determining the health and life chances of an individual. However, the NHS has the most political power, the most politically powerful body(GP's) and it is also very politically popular with voters because it is free to all at point of service.

The Beveridge Report in 1942 recommended a universal and comprehensive health service. Beveridge saw the prevention of ill health to be both the individual's and government's duty. This was a financially driven objective, to boost economic productivity, to avoid a dependency culture and limit Government benefits. His intention was social insurance to underpin responsible individual behaviour from the Cradle to the Grave. However to gain political favour with voters, the Government ignored Beveridge's funding recommendations and used a 'use NHS now, collect the money later policy'.

Bevan, nationalized the hospital system in 1948. National taxes funded the service as national taxation was more re-distributive and provided free access to health care as a right so the non-insured could not be turned away from a universal service. A predominantly tax-based system was popularly favoured at all levels. EXCEPT for DOCTORS who were frustrated as the proposed NHS limited their very lucrative pre-NHS earnings and clinical freedom. GP's professionalized their occupation by insisting on registration of doctors by an approved body and belonging to only Approved Societies. By this professional closure they were able to play hardball with the Treasury to ensure high salaries and benefits for many years to come in the future. Basically they held the government to ransom.

Faced with massive and ever increasing costs (as they were always spending all of the NHS resources before anyone paid for them) the Government had to raise NI contributions three times between 1957 and 1961. However, this was confirmed as an uncontroversial way to raise revenue. Attempts to reverse this trend in the 1980s, were unsuccessful. both attempts to alter the financial basis of the NHS failed and resulted, ironically, in the explicit re-endorsement of the tax-based system.

Why is the NHS preferred over alternative medicine? Money, control of the political power and professional closure by the politically powerful. It is the same answer for all 'alternative' systems.