From what we have seen, the answer to each of these questions is no. Keep an open mind. Quacks portray themselves as innovators and suggest that their critics are rigid, elitist, biased, and closed to new ideas. Actually, they have things backwards. The real issue is whether a method works.
Science provides ways to judge and discard unfounded ideas.
Medical science progresses as new methods replace less effective ones. Quack methods persist as long as they remain marketable. Even after they are gone, they still may be glorified. Nor is it close-minded to rely upon the vast body of accumulated scientific knowledge as a guide to giving advice or making practical decisions. Its aim is to portray the critic as a meddler or as someone with a grudge.