They're so constricted by the illusion of objectivity, red tape, the peer-review process, and the drawn-out approval of new drugs.

Like I get the point, but if there's an experimental cancer drug with high efficacy and you're not giving it to your late-stage terminal cancer patients simply because it's still making it's way through clinical trials or the FDA, then something is seriously wrong with that.

Also, assuming that nothing is correct until it's proven is not objectivity; it's negating the antecedent, a formal fallacy.

• If there is enough evidence to prove its efficacy, then it's an effective treatment.
• There is not enough evidence to prove its efficacy.
• ~~Therefore, it's not an effective treatment.~~
• It does not follow that it's not an effective treatment.

But doctors don't give a shit about philosophy, so I'm not surprised this fallacy is basically endemic to the medical profession.

Like, give women coneflower, cohosh, fenugreek, and fennel for their menstrual cycles. It's not that deep.