That's a strawman, for sure.
Doctors have a lot of education, and gain a lot of experience over time.
What I pointed out is that the studies are not enough. Where they leave off is where a doctor needs to be able to apply their education, experience, and knowledge of the case to make progress. Doctors are trained to apply scientific approaches to bridge the gap between the broad science and the individual patient. The big health co's do not like doctors doing this because it takes time and is expensive. So, they tie their hands because they only want the doctors to focus on the easiest fixes that solve the most problems.
>Doctors are trained to apply scientific approaches to bridge the gap between the broad science and the individual patient.
No. Really, I mean it. Doctors are trained in textbook approaches, not in the scientific method. The less creative, the better the doctor. That's precisely what evidence-based medicine is, and it's what allowed us to leave the Dark Ages of paternalistic medicine.
> The big health co's do not like doctors doing this because it takes time and is expensive. So, they tie their hands because they only want the doctors to focus on the easiest fixes that solve the most problems.
We tie our own hands. With guidelines. Yes, the system is tuned to a limited investment of time and money in each patient for distributive justice reasons, but guidelines are (mostly) there to discourage crackpot medicine.