While I applaud your analogy, it falls short.
The doctor does diagnostics and performs test that are based on previous experiments and countless theories that have been proven, disproven and refined. He does not make his diagnosis based on the fact that he knows a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy that supposedly talked to a guy that supposedly exists and knows all about medicine. I, as a patient, would be rediculed for just accepting a diagnosis such as this.
The other thing I would take issue with is the implication that I am ill. A differing opinion is not an illness, it is just a difference. To stick with your analogy, let us assume that a doctor is accompanying a patient for a meal. When their food arrives, the patient sends his plate back because it is spicy, and the patient does not like spicy foods. The doctor, who enjoys spicy foods, decides that the patient must be ill, and proceeds to try to manufacture a cure. Disliking spicy foods, however, is not an illness. It is simply a difference in taste.