You know, pretty much all medical "science" is crap. Humans make lousy test subjects. The docs are clueless about statistics, and have little to no experience (i.e. even a lifetime of practice is next to nothing). Everybody concerned is constrained to do their best for the patients, not for science.
Give me any day a clinical group that has found a protocol which leads to better outcomes, no matter what their process. I'll go for what they say even if it has nothing to back it up beyond that. I am very much anticipating the advent of AI that can integrate data from all over the world over many decades. The diagnostics and treatments that will come out of that will revolutionize medicine. Current approaches are almost useless for producing good data or good analysis.
It will be the AI guys, not the medical guys, that help people most in the end. You'll no doubt enjoy being told to stuff your opinion because you're only a doctor and what would you possibly have to contribute.
So you are saying if a protocol, leads to better outcomes, you will take it? would not everyone?
While in my opinion there is too much pressure to publish, and hence a lot of studies that might be of little benefit, to bluntly state "pretty much all medical science is crap" is hyperbole at its finest. Proof you say? Well just look at life expectancy over the years. Maybe meet someone who has had an organ transplant. Maybe talk to someone who 'beat' cancer. Did not just happen. That is medical science.
Maybe check this out?
Progress in Childhood Cancer: 50 Years of Research Collaboration, A Report from the Children's Oncology Group
Here is a graph, just this one graph, just this one graph, for one disease, negates your blanket condescending statement.