We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Many medical treatments do not work, or do not provide the benefits desired. This is not because of deliberate quackery. It is more because of convention and the slowness of medical practice to change. Furthermore, marginal study results frequently have validity, but so marginally that there is no important clinical use. Try explaining that in court.
One example might be the treatment of borderline hypertension, which is dubious but in the US if a doc doesn't address it he'd be looked at askance because the current consensus is to treat. Next year, it might be the opposite. Another example is coronary artery stents.
I used to do a lot of statistical work in R&D and materials and I'm very dubious of the type of "meta-analysis" done by the bio-med community. It's really easy to turn this into anything you want to say. Unlike machines or materials you can't test humans to destruction and you also don't start with brand-new healthy specimens. Thus the analysis methods are cloudy at best and rarely are there astounding differences in outcomes. This is really easy to use to falsely support dropping newer therapies. Teasing out what works and under what circumstances is an art that is best left to the practitioner. Guidelines are helpful, but in a litigious environment they become law. In addition, this discussion misses the underlying problem of accurate diagnosis and characterization of the state of the disease. The current tools are better than in the past, but still lack precision.
Better to try some things and have some agreements that potential harm is not excessive than to not try at all. Ban all metastudies and use the time and effort to do properly designed and executed primary studies.
I got interested in what was, and might still be, called "Outcomes research" and spent a year at Dartmouth learning techniques and methods. I had retired from surgical practice after a long back surgery. I then went out into the world and offered my new skills at analyzing medical quality. There I discovered that nobody, except a few doctors, was interested in medical quality. I eventually gave that up and taught medical students for the next 20 years. There were job offers from insurance companies that wanted to rent my medical degree but none interested in what I was interested.