You say “nastiness is normal", but if you think the tone here is nasty, I guess you don’t have much experience. Your “put upon by on all sides" defense is not helping you. The problem is not that these “sides" are wrong, although I’m sure we’d agree on many points, the problem is you have not developed a viable epistemology. I haven’t labeled you anything yet, other than someone who hasn’t explained what they believe in a manner that is convincing. You say you have a philosophy, but it’s all over the map, with stuff like “a person is animal, rational and spiritual". Have you ever tried to define “spiritual"?
Then, you go into silencing techniques. These work great if you are in a position of power, but you’re not. An example is the first sentence in your 3rd paragraph. You tell us what we are assuming and that we are fools for doing it. We can a) take a bunch of time to defend ourselves and unpack that sentence or b) ignore you. After that you string together words using your own special definitions. More to unpack or ignore.
I have a few threads on understanding what science is. “Authority in science" is a recent one in the “Religion" section. You’re right, “no one study is proof of anything", so, what is proof? I would say that is a better place to start than money corrupting medicine or wholistic approaches.