As statistics it's frightening, since these small and large instances must be part of a distribution.It's a distribution where any major successful suppressions are completely erased.Instead ask how many crazy funding proposals from successful scientists have turned out to be genuinely worthless. Perhaps the number of crazy-yet-vindicated research projects is large enough that it's much higher than the number of genuinely stupid research projects.(In that case, we should be preferentially funding a proposal because it looks crazy.) So, if you're going to dismiss or scoff at some crazy idea without bothering to first give it a chance and taking an unbiased look ..least make sure the idea is coming from a common crackpot. Make damn certain that "teh crazy" ISN'T coming from a professional scientist who is trying to fund a research project to give that weird-yet-untested idea a serious go.
It's not honest to simply ask how many crazy ideas are actually crazy.
That's an OK approach, if you'd presented it as a somewhat random sampling. You suggest that, before the ridicule can become a problem for science, it needs to persist thirty years?
As it stands, you seemingly "win the fight" by demonstrating the great weakness of the top ten examples, but without actually using a list of the top ten examples. "Only" ten brief years of blocked publications, that's nothing?
By definition, only the suppressed-vindicated breakthroughs can be detected.
Perhaps this list only lacks a tiny percentage of ridiculed-never-vindicated.