[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Those who practiced Bloodletting did so in the name of [scientific] medicine...

Not so much: "The story of bloodletting is intertwined in the mysterious fabric of medical lore; it originated from magic and religious ceremonies....Witch doctors and sorcerers were called on to drive out the evil spirits and demons. Bloodletting was a method for cleansing the body of ill-defined impurities and excess fluid....

"Health depended on the proper balance of these humors. Bloodletting was, therefore, a method used for adjusting on of the four body humors to proper balance...."

As opposed to: "The new 'scientific' or 'experimental' medicine (where results are testable and repeatable) replaced early Western traditions of medicine, based on herbalism, the Greek "four humours" and other pre-modern theories."

Just saying it was scientific doesn't make it so.

[Fichori]

I am thoroughly convinced you selectively read my post.

I will put it very simply:
As long as you don't consider those who, practiced Bloodletting and believed it to be scientific medicine; Bloodletting was not scientific medicine.

Bloodletting was, at the time, no less scientific than Evolution is now.
They are both built on a foundation of Religious belief in unproven or unprovable ideas.


So now the only remaining question is, at the time of practice, was Bloodletting vehemently defended in the same fashion that Evolution is now.(rhetorical question)
(I think not; Evolution is much more Religious in nature.)