Just a personal observation that Quackwatch and similar sites do also have their own agenda, which is generally "anti-anything-alternative" and so just because a treatment or protocol or physician etc is negated there, does not make them "quack" per se or without merit. There are treatments accepted nowadays that were on these types of negative lists before becoming widely acknowledged. "Scientific based" medicine is not without flaws, and the value of accumulated anecdotal evidence is often ignored. As in all things, balanced views often help more than biased ones. JMHO