The only thing I object to is the pseudoscientific abracadabrian mumpsimus that some of the new- age wonder healers come up with. And when they convince people on scientifically unsupportable grounds to eschew a mainstream treatment that works in favour of an alternative one that doesn't.

Mumpsimus? :-)

IMO and experience, any 'healer' who tries to convince people to forego standard medical treatment is no a 'healer' at all, but an opportunist. And a dangerous one.

That said, I really don't require or want scientific 'authority' or 'permission' or 'proof' to learn and practice alternative healing methods. I've studied Reiki and Therapeutic touch, and I've practiced Huna (form of energy work) every day for a few years now. I do know these methods work, and Huna works best of all.

I couldn't possibly give you a scientific explanation of how they work. Huna is not a chemical/ medical device/procedure with predictable, guaranteed, measurable mode of action and effect.
But I know it works, given certain mental/emotional/physical conditions which I'm discovering and understanding better all the time.

Any healing method that works fastest and best when one puts aside all doubt, sees the goal as already accomplished and says "Thank-you!" must be psychosomatic, at least to some extent. Well, that's Huna, in a nutshell! Does that make it any less viable or respectable or worthy a method than standard medical treatment? Not in my book, anyway! I've watched it work, for me, for my family and friends, and for many other people -- as long as those conditions are met. And that's more than enough, for me.