There's a huge potential flaw in your prediction: you assume that the true efficacy of the techniques they use will determine the survival and popularity of the research techniques. In the cases indicated, the people deciding whether to continue funding the research are not scientists who understand causal relations worth a damn, and they're very susceptible to spin (in the political sense of the term "spin", of course).

The saddest thing about it is that I'm positive there's something to the theories involved, but they're being squandered by people more interested in the popular appearance of success than they are in true efficacy -- possibly because they ego-identify with the successes of their pet projects, and ensure that they don't pay enough attention to the right factors to recognize the difference between appearance of efficacy and true efficacy.