This post describes views similar to my own. "The paradigm of EBM (evidence based medicine) ranks equivocal clinical trial evidence over well established basic science, even when that basic science demonstrates a proposed intervention to be utterly ridiculous on the basis of well-established physics and chemistry... The evidence-based movement has proposed that a systematic review with a meta-analysis of RCTs on a topic provides the strongest evidence of support and that widespread adoption of its results should lead to improved patient care. However, our results suggest that the interpretation of a meta-analysis (and therefore recommendations) are subjective and therefore depend on who conducts or interprets the meta-analysis." My views are also stated here.