"Herbal remedies" is a really loose term.

Indeed it is, which is why we should be applying some rigorous study to it.

Unfortunately, herbal supplements on the market are not regulated,

Regulation is a separate issue. And, of course, without good science, we can't have good regulation. If we applied half the scientific effort that we have toward, say, lasers, we'd probably have a fairly practical idea about what kinds of herbal remedies are effective, when, where and how, and maybe even why.

Acupuncture has never been shown to be medically efficacious, even though it's been studied to death.

I disagree with both your assertions, but that's a whole other argument.

The prayer one is, at best, inconclusive.

I completely agree. Which is why we need to spend some effort on good research. Maybe it's bunk, maybe there's something to it. We don't know! Because we haven't been scientific about it.

I am also of the firm belief that our current state of knowledge is woefully incomplete.

Let's not chuck those out simply because we don't know everything

I am not suggesting we chuck anything. But neither should we consider what we think we know to be sacrosanct. See below.

Moreover, let's not even begin to entertain extraordinary claims until they've show us some extraordinary evidence...we know quite a lot about human biology, and about what is needed to be able to do the things these people claim, and it ain't happening. . .we shouldn't even go . . . until they show some really goddamned good evidence, because they are making claims that are extremely far outside the realm of credibility.

I totally disagree with everything except the notion that the x-ray vision claims stretch credibility pretty far (people seemed to take my "heck" statement a little too literally). I think if we put an "extraordinary" burden on folks who are not really equipped to carry that burden, we shortchange ourselves by failing to explore possible avenues that could lead to really interesting and helpful discoveries. It is of course human nature to be dogmatic, orthodox and controlling, but such tendencies tend to marginalize exciting and important advancements. The example du jour is N. Tesla, whose tale demonstrates that this process does not apply just to health science, but to pretty much all science.

We hurt ourselves when we dismiss a claim simply because it is far outside our paradigm of scientific theory. I am not advocating for credulity here, or even for any particular practice (my examples were only meant to show possibilities). I am simply advocating for a return to that spirit (and funding pool) of inquiry that brought us such amazing and useful technologies as vaccines, space shuttles and fusion reactors.