Peter, you fail to understand that in the past, sometimes the accepted view was the psuedoscience, and that the Maverick theory was the actual fact. Was Newtonian mechanics ‘paranormal’ before it took over from Aristotle-ian mechanics? No it was not.
By comparison, a quack theory is one with no basis in fact, evidence or reality. Your example of excess conservatism in treatment methods. Resistance to new theories is an unfortunate side-effect of science’s skpeticism and conservatism. The very fact that the Sister in question was able to convince people by demonstration showing how it worked better than the limb immobilazation. In her case the evidence was winning out, until the Polio vaccine made such a treatment almost unrequired. Compare her actions to those of an actual quack, such as Hulda Clark’s 'Cancer Zapper and you will see a marked change. Your example went through the proper motions and was sadly and unfairly scorned. Clarke by contrast, hides from anything that might be an evangelistic and enthusiastic audience.
Now before you go condemning science’s natural skepticism and conservatism (oh wait…too late). I would point out that when science has failed to act in such a manner it is almost invariably a fiasco. Cold Fusion comes to mind, as do N-rays (at least in France). Thousands of theories have been tossed into the ashcan can because they simply did not stand up to scrutiny.
Now what makes something paranormal? Simply that it does not have a science based explanation most of the time. If you see a ghost, there may be a host of mundane reasons, such as your mind playing tricks, optical tricks, etc. It only becomes paranormal when you actually have a real ghost, (whcih simply hasn’t been demonstrated yet). Since no-one has a theoiry of how ghosts could exist that doesn’t involve newage gobbldeygook, it would remain paranormal.
The simple cry that “everything is paranormal until proven true” is simply wrong. Newton’s mechanics were never paranormal, they just didn’t have an adequete description.
