I did not say that CAM practitioners do not want to be subjected to RCT, nor did I claim that it is acceptable for conventional medical practitioners to recomme

I did not say that CAM practitioners do not want to be subjected to RCT, nor did I claim that it is acceptable for conventional medical practitioners to recommend practices and procedures that are not evidence-based. Make no mistake, I'm not conflating conventional medicine with evidence-based medicine (EBM). Statements like "get some rest and drink some fluids" must be backed up by evidence to be considered EBM, and there have been cases where that very statement was proven false. In medicine there are also assertions and predictions based on theory instead of direct evidence, lest we be hamstrung by cases not specifically studied. Conventional medicine has an advantage here, because the many theories it collectively adopts on the human ecosystem (physiology, biochemistry, germs, and others) are generally backed by scientifically rigorous studies. This leads to a model that is very well described, often down to the molecular level, and correlates well with other branches of science. This makes its assertions a lot more plausible, if only indirectly evidence-based. Compare that with the theories of the schools of CAM, many of which are based on nothing but tradition, with many others already having been debunked. This lack of plausibility plays a part in limiting the resources available for CAM research, and is the cause of the general sense of incredulity at the CAM community's claims by the scientifically literate. This relates to the OP, where a theory poorly backed-up by evidence is used to create a large body of assertions, leading to doubt and incredulity over its claims.