This is a misunderstanding of my meaning. I should have been clearer. Of course observation or serendipity provides a spark toward understanding and proof. Anecdotes provide clues to construct a hypothesis. Then you test that hypothesis to see if the evidence supports or refutes your premise. Only after you do the testing do you have science.
So what I meant by science is not advanced by anecdotes is that science is advanced by testing, retesting, and validation. While it is an anecdote it is just a guess.

Yes, I encourage that. I am posting lots of research being done by Doctors actually treating the disease. The studies the Doctors produce are from treating real patients with real protocols looking for the presence or absence of real results from real drugs. It is being done by Doctors. Medicine is full of sad stories of doctors providing care in a non-proven manner only to have proper studies prove the fallacy or even danger of that care. When I practiced I sought to provide evidence based care. Often what everyone else is doing is good care and seems reasonable. Sometimes it is not. In those cases I'd like to know if I should be doing something different.

Here's an example. In caring for premature newborns, premies, the major killer was immature lungs thus inadequate oxygen being provided. Once the ability to place premies into incubators and increase the oxygen being delivered to them became available it was rapidly adopted and saved lives. As there was no good way to figure out how much extra oxygen to give, better to give too much than too little. Oxygen is good.

That was how everyone did it, and it was wrong. Only scientific studies and long term follow-up proved what everybody was doing had risk greater than benefit. Now the amount of oxygen is carefully controlled to avoid excess oxygen [it's dangerous].

Sometimes experience is just the repetition of the same mistake.