There's a spectrum between crackpottery and solidly evidence-backed consensus treatments. The middle of that spectrum: - The existing evidence, although positi

There's a spectrum between crackpottery and solidly evidence-backed consensus treatments. The middle of that spectrum: - The existing evidence, although positive, may be low quality, or preliminary. - The treatment is advanced by some otherwise legitimate practitioners, even if it isn't consensus mainstream. - The treatment has been used safely in traditional medicine for a long time, and simply hasn't been studied yet in a scientific framework. - The promoters aren't transparent crackpots, and don't use empty buzzwords like "quantum". - Any proposed mechanisms at least make some basic sense and don't break the basic principles of physics and biology, and aren't clear woo. What I am saying is that if a treatment ticks some of the above boxes and is safe, then give it a go. They're less likely to work, but the expected value is high because the costs are low. Crystal healing ticks none of these boxes and therefore can be discarded with more confidence, since the expected value is low, even though it's true we can't be absolutely certain that it doesn't work.