Of course an analytic approach based on well-founded assumptions will avoid most quackeries which is what I interpret you were saying.
However, please read again my first line. Everyone is subject to placebo effects, including cosmologists and psychopaths. It is a matter of which of your expectations are triggered, which is where the "unreliable" part comes in. Estimates are that within any group 15% - 70% of people may be affected in a given test, a huge range, but that is not to do with the individual traits but with the particular effect and expectation and its reinforcement.
Swallowing quackery is one possible predecessor of a placebo effect, but not a necessary one and not what placebo is. I hope that makes the distinction clearer.
However, please read again my first line. Everyone is subject to placebo effects, including cosmologists and psychopaths. It is a matter of which of your expectations are triggered, which is where the "unreliable" part comes in. Estimates are that within any group 15% - 70% of people may be affected in a given test, a huge range, but that is not to do with the individual traits but with the particular effect and expectation and its reinforcement.
Swallowing quackery is one possible predecessor of a placebo effect, but not a necessary one and not what placebo is. I hope that makes the distinction clearer.

Comment