(...) "all" in such a claim is universally interpreted by doctors and scientists as being universally quantified (...) I accept that you are ignorant of how scientific discourse works

Not universally interpreted by doctors and scientists. I'm gonna go ahead and say that you have no idea what you're talking about and go off of what you think "all" should mean in 'all' the sciences, not what it defaults to in actual medical papers. Context!

No medical publications whatsoever can use the "all" quantifier without restricting the scope, implicitly or explicitly. Whenever you find an "all" quantifier without a restriction specified, that's at best a lazy omission or at worst an automatic error. What, a parasympathomimetic drug will slow down a subject's heart rate for all humans? Have you checked them all?

"Scientists" publishing in medicine don't get all excited (oooh an "all" quantifier) like you whenever they come across a claim that's unwisely worded using "all" without explicitly restricting the scope.

Bowing out, I'll leave you the last word if you want it.