Ok, so people still succumb even when tested drugs with observable positive effects are administered. This explains why both the doctor and the patient have faith in the tested drug.
And as I already addressed this point, the difference is the reasons for why it fails are observable by scientific method. We have naturalistic causes for why drugs and treatments are never 100% effective. It can be observed that a particular infection is resistant to a given antibiotic, for example.
Can you observe under a microscope a prayer for healing that didn’t get answered? No. And since the faith that undergirded that prayer is not measurable, but yet it is a requirement for a successful response, that remains a fundamental difference to a science based approach to recovery from disease.
If it’s observable, measurable, reviewable, testable then it’s something we can gain information about without regard to prayer, faith, etc. That doesn’t mean you can’t add those things to your bucket of tools for coping if you’re religious. But this whole “science is faith” argument is both disingenuous and a misrepresentation of both concepts.
When it comes to seeking medical treatment that’s been scientifically reviewed, faith has nothing to do with it. Again, science deals in probabilities and confidence levels. It makes predictions, not promises.