"fanciful tenuous", "slightly related": arbitrary and tendentious value judgements.
"open minded": it is not open-minded to suggest that the truth paradigm you have learned in "over 20 years of clinical research" (quoting liberally from memory from an early post - please correct if wrong) is the absolute right and that anybody who does not adhere strictly to the code you have learned, or looks outside it, is stumbling around in murky confusion.
It is not open-minded to suggest a hypothesis is unreasonable because it is unproven and does not meet with one's preconceptions even though it is not, anatomically or physiologically, implausible.
Where I reside, if you tried to ban crystal healing or "bioresonance therapy" or "medical dowsing" or ... etc. etc. ... on the basis of lack of proof and scientific implausibility, as you are suggesting, people would be up in arms.
Must? Should? Shouldn't? What's it all about?
or even better, the use of stimulants in ADHD.