You'd probably do yourself a favour by avoiding "good guy, bad guy" thinking. In their position, wouldn't you act the same way? Doctors have a finite amount of energy and time to spend on their job. What is a resource efficient way to maximize the utility of the sum of all patients? Is it, (a) invest an exorbitant amount of time on one patient whose symptoms isn't supported by very well funded (much more highly funded and rigorous than what you, the doctor, could ever invest on your own) research (which is probably a true positive only a small percentage of the time), at the expense of other patients, or (b) trust the current scientific consensus (at the small but occasional risk of being wrong)?
It's not "arrogance", and you shouldn't think of what's happening now as "vindication". It's just cost efficiency at the (unavoidable) risk of occasionally being wrong.
>In their position, wouldn't you act the same way? Doctors have a finite amount of energy and time to spend on their job.
Almost everything I hear from clients I consider to be wrong. And I politely explain to them why that is, I get into their assumptions and reasons for thinking what they do, and try to convince them of why it is not the case. I never mock, I never suggest that they are idiots, and were I to start shirking if they disagreed with me, I wouldn't then make them pay while I continued to shirk.
It's not "arrogance", and you shouldn't think of what's happening now as "vindication". It's just cost efficiency at the (unavoidable) risk of occasionally being wrong.