>>The problem is that this the difference between witch doctors and modern doctors might be less than you think. Drugs might be tested in random trails, but still might be proven ineffective, highly addictive and have serious adverse problems like some anti-depressants has shown. It would not be the first time that drugs have been taken off the market years after they entered the market. Many thousands of people die each year because of over-medication or wrong usage.

Yes, but it's like Churchil's famous dictum that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

IME if you compare modern medicine to the alternatives then despite the missteps and mistakes, the impact overwhelmingly is positive starting with near eradication of scourges if not for middle-class lifestylers who think vaccination is a lifestyle choice and on and on it goes.

>>Even worse the situation is for treatments. There are no randomized trail regulations for treatments (not that I know off).

Actually in the Netherlands as elsewhere in the world, treatment cannot commence without trials that cannot commence without passing Ethical approval and strict rules without which the trial cannot be funded or published and therefore is useless.

The only people who can treat as they please are the alternative practitioners who can boast of wonderful unverified successes from random treatments. The only ones who get stopped are the ones with medical degrees who can be struck off; the others are mavericks.

>>This is not a rant against modern physicians, but a reality check. For the larger part we are still practicing medicine by trail and error.

There are questionable established treatments, but anything new that comes on the scene either is part of a trial requiring patient consent and strict oversight, or already has entered established practice with a body of evidence. I agree that some established treatments are questionable, but those are replaced as soon as something better comes on the scene. If they're still used- then that tells you something. Yes, I agree that there's still uncertainty even with the very latest discoveries- but again, you need to weigh alternatives. And as with all proof: the most valuable evidence is the evidence that disproves the hypothesis. That's the situation faced by modern medicine: you can stack up as much glowing success as you please, but always there is a chance of negative discovery around the corner for retrospectoscope wielders to holler about.

>>I have faith that modern medicine will cure cancer and other serious illnesses at some point in the future, but be are not there yet. Not by a long shot.

Actually there already are cures for some cancers, vaccines for others and genetic tests to determine from a very young age whether somebody is likely to get other cancers. Also re cure, bearing in mind that nobody lives forever- a cure consists of zero ongoing impact on lifestyle until you die of something else. IOW it's not always necessary to eradicate the disease to "cure" it.