> I'd like to say we've become empirical enough about what practices we place belief in that we could just treat all cases of quackery as malicious fraud - but the very prevalence of such issues tends to support the opposite conclusion.

There are enough cognitive biases I can't support this conclusion. Confirmation bias alone accounts for a lot of this crap, I'm sure.

Fundamentally, though, there's a big difference between crap we know doesn't and can't work, like homeopathy, and therapies that are in the pipeline and might be accepted or rejected on their merits.

Homeopathy has had its turn and it failed. That goes for everything else I called quackery. Don't confuse that with something we haven't tried yet.