The study of human physiology or medical science is difficult to conduct without bias or contradiction. Conducting an experiment that would give clear and unambiguous results is frequently either unethical, impractical or otherwise impossible. We simply can’t do the type of experiment that would give a clear answer to important questions. The void that this creates leads to a difficulty that confuses proper and legitimate understanding. There is great pressure to invent truth and call it evidence when truth can not be determined.
There is a struggle to know when scientific reasoning based on anatomy, physiology, biochemistry etc. will produce an expected result or when the complexity of the human body prevents such an approach. There are some spectacular failures of educated rationalization in medicine. The debacle known as VIOXX comes to mind. In the case of a failure of scientific reasoning. VIOXX was supposed to be better based on a rational approach to the science of cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors. The human body is extraordinarily complex so what was supposed to work, didn’t. This is common. A drug that lowers cholesterol should improve outcomes like better health and increased longevity. It is easier to believe that it does than to have evidence that it does. How about if we have evidence and want to believe it so much that we call our study “evidence based”. That should do it. There is nobody to verify whatever criteria there are to establish that is is “evidence based” so why not? Declaring that a treatment is “evidence based” does not prevent the introduction of bias or downright misconduct.
The term “evidence based” is a marketing term. We could call my opinion in this article “evidence based” because I believe in what I have read or experienced is valid and significant. I rely on this evidence that I hold in high esteem a so I admonish my opinion as “evidence based”.