No, of course not. I eat at restaurants all the time. People will be hungry again shortly, even if fed wonderfully well. There are other things to worry about more, like if they are meeting food safety codes, which some don't.
I did therapy with a military chaplain. I had a really positive experience there. He wasn't being paid by me to deal with me. He was on salary. If I got better, that had no bearing on how much he made.
Some of the best hospitals in the US put their doctors on salary a long time ago. How many tests they order has no bearing on their income the way it can for a lot of private practice.
I have serious health issues and have gotten healthier via alternative approaches. I've thought a lot about what's wrong with modern medicine and I do think the way it gets paid for in the US is part of the problem. That doesn't mean I would never go to a doctor.
I've had lots of medical care and I would have died without it a long time ago, but I also was told at some point "People like you don't get well." When I didn't like that answer, I was scheduled fewer appointments and the rest of the world has since decided to malign me as a nutcase who "refuses" to see a doctor, which isn't the case.
I'm not an anti-intellectual by any stretch of the imagination. Nor do I think you should never seek expert advice. I'm just saying that advice free from conflict of interest is actually very valuable and one of the things offered by things like advice columns.
Example scenario:
If you are crying on the shoulder of some woman friend about your marital problems, you ultimately get divorced and end up with her, you have to wonder if she was really giving you advice designed to enhance your life or designed to enhance hers. You have to wonder if you can really trust her. It's a situation where she probably should have recused herself and told you "I'm not the person to get advice from on this matter. Sorry." But that's often not how it goes.
This is especially apparent when the alternative is often some faceless person(s) on the internet who may very well bring their own (unknowable to you) biases to the table.
Framing this as opinion based on "my experience" is basically hanging an awful lot of baggage on me and acting like I've simply had a sucktastic life surrounded by people I can't trust, etc. It's a pretty ugly suggestion and not only serves to invalidate me, it invalidates the point entirely by presuming it has no real basis other than "Wow, that woman must have the worst life ever. Sucks to be her, I guess." And that's really not a good faith means to engage the point.
Anyway, I'm done here. This entire discussion is completely off the rails from my perspective.
Actually, military chaplains do have a conflict of interest. They have to be endorsed by a religious organization, and said endorsement must be maintained throughout the chaplain's military service and can be withdrawn at any time for religious or disciplinary reasons. If they're not consistent with the teachings of their denomination, they stand to lose their military benefits and a pension.
You might come back to a restaurant if you enjoyed your experience. The incentive is to give you as good a meal as possible. If you're hungry, you won't come back.
Doctors have a more concrete job to do. There's plenty of malpractice in the medical industry, by the way.
Psychiatry? It's much less concrete what a patient's needs are than other forms of business. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to bring up a potential conflict of interest there.
Equating things at random which don't make logical sense doesn't invalidate the point someone is trying to make.
I think this just speaks the the modern trend of anti-intellectualism. Distrust of an expert because of phantom biases and the regression toward getting advice from your "tribe".