You say "crystal healing doesn't work and people shouldn't try it." Why not? Aren't you being closed-minded? How is crystal healing any worse than any other scientifically unsupported remedy?
- 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.
The back surgeon interviewed patients long after back surgery. They reported some help, but some pain / discomfort remained. He looked at Xrays of painful vs pain-free, & found Xrays looked very similar. That's when he started teaching 'pain management'.
IMHO teaching 'pain management' would be helpful for all. Could prevent some surgeries, but even if they got corrective surgery, the self-help management could still prove useful.
But if something sounds sort-of plausible, has some tentative but low quality evidence, and it's low cost and low risk, and it's not going to distract you from more proven treatments, then just try it out and see if it works. A small handful of people won't even go that far because of dogmatically orthodox thinking, and those are the people I'm addressing.
> To assume that someone can solve a debilitating problem that affects millions in hours by selling you a book is probably in 99% of cases a scam.
If it's psychosomatic pain, there's legitimate scope for a self-help book to actually improve things for them. Also why wouldn't we expect practitioners who have been hands on with clients for 20 years to not have picked up some useful tricks that didn't make it into peer reviewed studies? I feel like your statement here is too heavy on the skepticism, even though you're right that there are loads of books that are quackery. There can be learned wisdom built up through practice that isn't peer reviewed.