Here's why *real* medicine is different than woo:

[geek tragedy]

42. You refuted yourself:

OP Manny:

For woo... hard to tell how much is evidence based. Lots of woo things are actually evidence-based, but they're considered "woo" because neither docs, hospitals, nor drug companies can make a buck off of them. Nobody's made a study of it, to my knowledge, but the percentage of evidence-based woo's probably no worse than the percentage in "real" medicine. Can't be much worse. My personal woo habits are probably a lot more evidence-based than typical "real" medicine practiced by the vast bulk of doctors - Pubmed is my friend.

...

Once in a while, a few people get killed by woo. But tens of thousands? If anyone knows of even a hundred killed in a woo-tastrophe, I'd love to hear about it.

All in all, sadly, we're mostly on our own when it comes to either "real" medicine or woo. Not much evidence for either. At least woo is a lot less effective at mayhem. There is lots of evidence in the literature about stuff that really helps, but it gets ignored because nobody can make a buck off of it.

In other words, your claim is that the benefits of woo are probably as great as those of medical science with far fewer costs.

But along comes Comment Manny to reveal OP Manny as an ignoramus:

Comment Manny:

Average life expectancies have increased by 30 years of so over the last century. Studies have shown that most of this is due to sanitation, antibiotics, and vaccines, but a major chunk of it is still-unexplained

So, Comment Manny shows, OP Manny is simply full of nonsense. Medical science has increased human life expectancy by decades! Woo's track record contribution to that increase has been estimated at zero.

Polio, smallpox, diphtheria, whooping cough--those diseases had nothing to fear from woo.