Quite frankly, I do not think that there is a real debate "modern vs. traditional," inasmuch as this distinction can be even made. I think most rational people would approach the subject of medicine with an open mind and do not apriori reject or accept something solely because it comes with the label "modern" or "traditional." I personally know medical practitioners who are quite open to any "traditional" practice, from acupuncture, to yoga, to herbal treatments, or "talk" therapy.
What I object to is intellectuals who for try to put a variety found in the world into the Procrustean bead of rigid dichotomies and a struggle of good versus evil. It is quite annoying when the likes of Bush or Huntington do it, and it is equally annoying when various "alternative" types do it. A simple Google search can find hundreds of "alternative" medicine websites whose main message is attacking "establishment" medicine. I do not think you can find many "establishment" medicine sites that attack anything, let alone make it their message.
I think that most of this "alternative," or "counter-establishment" discourse is basically silly garbage parroted by frustrated intellectuals who make a career by fighting demons among their own ranks. Hearing it for a while can be quite annoying and makes people react by moving into the opposite direction - to identify with 'Western,' 'Northern,' 'Modern' 'First World' 'conventional' values. I am willing to bet that this was the "straw" that broke Hitchen's back and made him move to the other side.
To sum it up, I do not uncritically embrace anything labeled 'western science' and uncritically reject anything labeled 'traditional medicine.' What I object to is medical and intellectual quacks who make a buck by fighting demons of their own creation - be it western science, medicine, 'the establishment' and kindred demons raging inside, or 'godless communism,' 'islamic terrorism,' 'yellow peril' and sundry demons lurking outside.
Wojtek