eldavojohn writes: "While nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals..."

As evidence he provides a reference to: the statement by a single journal. Surely that is not "most journals", is it? Where is the evidence that most journals have even commented on the story, much less rendered a verdict as to its seriousness?

To be fair, the statement might well be true, in the sense that "most scientific journals" have not issued any statement on the matter. And even if they did so, in the short period of time that has transpired, it could only represent the views of the editors, not the body of researchers that contributes to it.

So what we have here seems to be the gross magnification of one statement to reflect a broad consensus.

I don't believe they found the first trillion congruent numbers; rather, they tested the first trillion whole numbers for congruency.

The key point you've glossed over is the measurement "200CK". How much is 200CK? It means that the substance has undergone 200 100-to-1 dilutions. That means that the concentration has been reduced from full strength by a factor of 100^200. Yes, that's right---10^400. According to this article in Wikipedia, the number of observable atoms in the observable universe is approximately 10^80. Clearly, you will be the luckiest person alive, 10^40 or so times over, if even one atom of the active ingredient is left in your sugar pill.

Not until you linked to it, no. The idea that I would think that they should "stop giving awards to known anti-Bush partisans" is preposterous.

I genuinely believe Krugman deserves his award. I believe the work for which he earned it is great stuff, and so did those aformentioned economists with whom I once had the pleasure of meeting. And I believe that the way the OP phrases his post unnecessarily links that work with his political punditry.

That's what I believe, that's what I meant, and that's what I said. You clearly doubt my sincerity; that is your problem, not mine. But since I can't fight that, you win.