Why did conventional interventions fail where complementary ones succeeded?

Let's read this story :

Julie Mathias collapsed suddenly, paralysed down the right side of her body. She was suffering a severe form of a condition called a hemiplegic migraine. It is not fully understood, but the paralysis is caused by a communication failure between the nerves.

.......Julie is now the subject of a documentary on Sky One called Which Doctor? In the programme, patients desperate to resolve chronic conditions are given a choice of conventional or complementary medicine.
........In a scene when Julie returns to see the doctors, she walks without a stick, and is moving and speaking normally. She beams with relief as she announces that she is back at work.

Do you think conventional interventions fail where complementary ones succeeded in that case?

I don't think so. It's nothing about difference of two kind of medicines. It's about diagnoses issue.