> very few practitioners were even aware of the existence of evidence-based clinical guidelines shame on them. but that doesn't mean the field is not based on

> very few practitioners were even aware of the existence of evidence-based clinical guidelines shame on them. but that doesn't mean the field is not based on science any more than an arbitrary recent conference by crackpots in maths being used as proof of invalidating maths. > Excessive diagnosis and treatment are endemic. Which is exactly OP's point on maligned incentives. This is despite scientific backing, not because of it. > There are dozens of journals and organizations devoted to evidence-based medicine, but only a handful devoted to evidence-based dentistry. Yes. As expected. Since it's a tiny subfield compared to the totality of medicine. Similarly there are dozens of journals on engineering, but presumably only a handful devoted to the use of solar panels in agricultural engineering.