Obviously, sheer disgust made it hard for doctors to embrace this treatment.
I'm not sure this is obvious. As the H. pylori story shows, it's sufficient that an idea seem "weird".
Relative to other fields, doctors face an unusually large disincentive to unilaterally change treatments. The preferred defense in a malpractice case is to literally argue that you were doing what everyone else does. You don't have to defend the recommended treatment, just show that what you did was the "standard of care".
The inherent bureaucratic incentive is to stick with the status quo, and to resist any change (good or bad), until everyone can move in lockstep.
Also, are doctor's really that disgusted by poop? I'm told medical students actively compete to become specialists in the examination of assholes.
Relative to other fields, doctors face an unusually large disincentive to unilaterally change treatments. The preferred defense in a malpractice case is to literally argue that you were doing what everyone else does. You don't have to defend the recommended treatment, just show that what you did was the "standard of care".
I was under the impression that the stories about doctors being conservative and not good scientists date far before, and more universally, than the legal changes which made malpractice suit feasible rather than impossible.
Related: Son of Low Hanging Fruit
Another post on finding low hanging fruit from Gregory Cochran's and Henry Harpending's blog West Hunter.