This is a difficult issue. You cannot ethically perform sham surgeries to know if there is a true treatment effect. This is a very complicated issue, because on the one hand a lot of alternative medicine is being held to the RCT gold standard, which doesn't hold for a lot of how medicine is actually practiced. Any good health care must be tailored to the individual patient. But RCTs are not typically tailored to the individual but rather attempt to test an intervention that is systematically applied in the same way across a group of individuals.
Evidence is critical, of course, but the debate becomes what qualifies as good enough evidence.
It is too limiting to say that the RCT is the only irrefutable evidence. That is certainly a good option. Sometimes you have to look at outcomes-based research that is occurring in a natural setting rather than the more contrived or controlled setting. One of the problems with the RCT is that essentially you attempt to control extraneous variables, but these are often the very same variables that are operating in the real lives of patients. Therefore, one can question how externally valid the tightly controlled RCT or experiment really is.