In a new and interesting book entitled Medical Nihilism (2018), Jacob Stegenga attempts to convince us that modern medical therapies are less effective than we think. Given the heterogeneity of hypotheses in medicine and the evidence for or against them, I argue that such a decontextualised critique cannot be made unless substantially weakened. Instead, I put forward an alternative, more nuanced and defensible epistemic view of medicine. According to this view, evaluating medical evidence requires analysis of both the methods of research e.g. randomised controlled trial (RCT), and context-specific information. This is because the way a trial (even an RCT) is conducted e.g. the population recruited and how it is intervened on, will vary and will have significant effects on the likelihood of a positive outcome. Moreover, the relationship between the positive outcome of a trial and the actual effectiveness of an intervention (the trial validity) will depend on these context specific factors. I argue for this position against nihilism by showing how each of Stegenga's individual claims about medical trials (trials are biased in favour of positive outcomes etc) can be questioned by taking the context into consideration.