One of the (many) problems with requiring randomized controlled trials to believe anything:

Research funding follows profit. If something can't be patented/sold, it often doesn't get studied... regardless how effective it may be.

Creating bias in what's considered "evidence-based"

You see this clearly with IBD treatment.

People don't get recommended diet changes, deeper testing or lifestyle changes, not because they don't work, but because they fall outside treatment guidelines.

Guidelines heavily influenced by pharma and what gets studied based on profit incentives.

You'll likely never see massive RCTs on "alternative" treatments people have used successfully for decades. There's no money in it.

So pharma treatments = "evidence-based" and within guidelines

Everything else = "alternative" and "unproven"

The framework is rigged from the start.