You'd probably do yourself a favour by avoiding "good guy, bad guy" thinking. In their position, wouldn't you act the same way? Doctors have a finite amount of energy and time to spend on their job. What is a resource efficient way to maximize the utility of the sum of all patients? Is it, (a) invest an exorbitant amount of time on one patient whose symptoms isn't supported by very well funded (much more highly funded and rigorous than what you, the doctor, could ever invest on your own) research (which is probably a true positive only a small percentage of the time), at the expense of other patients, or (b) trust the current scientific consensus (at the small but occasional risk of being wrong)?
It's not "arrogance", and you shouldn't think of what's happening now as "vindication". It's just cost efficiency at the (unavoidable) risk of occasionally being wrong.