You still haven't read the studies. Your point would be much more powerful if you linked to a study and showed where they had gone wrong. (That's not hard; they typically use very small sample sizes. It's hard to randomise the groups. How was the blinding done? How are the effects measured? What are the confidence ranges on the results.)

But you should note that these are not quack journals and disreputable colleges - these are real journals and real researchers. Note that most of the reports are fair - "might be effective" and "deserves further investigation" tend not to be the language used by quacks.

Maybe I've misunderstood your point?