For your information, quackery means nothing else but deceiving or cheating, conning people.
Not in the definition skeptics use of the word. For skeptics it includes techniques that practitioners believe in, but aren't up to the standards of Evidence Based Medicine.
Basically, they define quackery as anything that hasn't been proven scientifically, and they define alternative medicine the same way. It is self evident that they are the same, because the definitions are basically self-referential.
That doesn't mean they don't have a point though: since it is hard to know exactly what someone believes it isn't very practical to differentiate between deliberate frauds and people who believe that the useless things they are selling actually work. Suppose only deliberate fraud is illegal, but selling useless remedies you believe in isn't. It would mean that the deliberate frauds always have the perfect alibi. The only thing they have to do is say that they believe in it and they go free, since belief is very hard to disprove. This is why skeptics don't distinguish between deliberate and honest 'quackery', even though they do recognize that in one case it is a crime and in the other it is someone honestly trying to help.
Instead of having to prove that you really believe in what someone, skeptics just want people to prove that what they are doing actually works. This can be very hard, even for obvious things like pills and powders. But unfortunately for many psychological treatments, it is (almost) impossible: you can't give someone a placebo session that is indistiguishable from a real one and psychological treatments are impossible to 'double blind'. Most experiments in psychotherapy are simply case studies, which is basically 'anecdotal evidence' and nobody can go back and repeat them.
This is why skeptics and scientific psychologists are skeptical of many psychotherapeutical techniques. Only cognitive psychotherapy, which is based on behavourism, and biological (neuro)psychiatry (making people feel better with medication) have scientific approval. And if therapies are based on religious or supernatural concepts, it is hard for them to even consider that there might be something to it. And then there are techniques, like hypnosis, that can easily be used to manipulate how people think and have successfully been used in psychological experiments to implant false memories into people's heads, or make people exhibit false symptoms of non-existing disorders. Skeptics will always consider the possibility that therapists might be doing that, perhaps even unintentionally.
This is a skeptic board, and you will meet people who are skeptical about these things. Don't expect to gain any respect by saying that you have lots of experience or that you are certified by some organization. For skeptics saying that you have experience in homeopathy, acupuncture or the study of leprechauns in the wild is all pretty much the same. You'll just have to show that whatever you are claiming is worth it to consider to be true. If you can't, even though it is not a nice thing to do, they'll consider you fair game for ridicule.
God didn't create skeptics to be nice, you know? He made them to critize you, because you'll learn more from criticism than from anything else.
.
