I find that I have to repeat myself. You seem to be using a kind of reasoning that I don't think is very productive. Are you aware of this?
I could spend some time explaining where I think you go off the rails, but I'm afraid you prefer trolling over learning. Please let me know if I'm mistaken, and I'd be happy to continue the conversation.
Why are real world examples "counterproductive"? Do you not see that some people are healed by this?
What is hard to understand about real world people healing?
So because in a study of eg 200 people 170 don't improve at all but 30 do this now obviously means that on average the thing studied doesn't work: so the study concludes "X doesn't work" even thought 30 people got completely cured.
So you'd now prefer for no-one to get cured because "on average" treatment X doesn't work. Perhaps your reasoning is not productive?
It's really simple: these things work for SOME people: should they not have tried this and instead remain ill?
A human life is not the average + confidence interval in a study: humans are different, an individual is a VERY REAL N=1, not "the average study participant".
I could spend some time explaining where I think you go off the rails, but I'm afraid you prefer trolling over learning. Please let me know if I'm mistaken, and I'd be happy to continue the conversation.