Homeopathic Blog Post

I thought your post on Ricard Dawkins was much more interesting. This one is a little scant on details.

It works!! I feel so much better, when Briggs says nothing.

In rebuttal:

Correction:

Shecky, homeopathy works for me too.

This is notable – possibly even remarkable – I am impressed.
This one I understand and completely concur.

– – Just back from ‘Eye of the Tiber:’
More agreement!
Thanks, Matt.

* This is more like it: Saturday morning cartoons – –
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/cg3-the-gold-medalist/#comments
* Current Central American Games list no contenders for Mikey to worry about at the next Olympics.

Love the understated humor in this post! Very homeopathic, like most remedies, it contains no actual substance!

Excellent Rorschach item. Or is it a word association item. Whichever it should reveal a lot about the mental state of your commenters.

When my regular primary care physician, who was very good, retired, my revenue stream was passed to a new physician. In my first meeting I discovered that he was into homeopathy. When I asked for research on the treatment for arthritis he recommended, he basically said “it is an old Vermont folk remedy”. Your post captures my reaction and the fact that I moved to a different practice entirely.

Homeopathy is just like praying: it works when you believe it.

“Understated elegance… Thought provoking… Insightful…”
– NY Times Review

You’d be mistaken if you think you’ve posted nothing. This is a proving. You have provoked an imaginative reaction in your readers and they haven’t even ingested anything! A notable reaction can be provoked with next to nothing. Homeopathy wins!!!!!!!!!

Snarky skeptic: “Homeopathy is all in the imagination.”

Homeopath:”1000 times yes! That’s the point.”

How many dilutions was that post?

So Zen!

A-ha! Proof! Your conservative ways have always made you suspect, but now you have revealed yourself for the anti-science type you are! We’re tossing you out of the guild!

I’m very confused by the comments here. Does the blog post “Homeopathic Blog Post” not show up in some browsers? For those of you who do see the blog post, have you no comment? Is this some sort of statistical experiment, and I’m missing the point?

Looking through the page source, I can see some stuff that might cause this behavior, but I’m not very good with javascript and stylesheets and such; maybe this was accomplished with a white-on-white font? That would explain why cut-and-paste still works.

Normally I’m not a paranoid guy, but something here is making me feel very uneasy.

Ha! I see it now. Clever, very clever. The jokes on me.

Thanks works for me.

Milton:
Great response.

In reply to Ray on 16 March 2013 at 1:01 pm –

The miasm still remains, as I can plainly feel through the spiritual vibrations. IMO following Hahnemann’s law of similars is an ipse dixit axiom, as elucidated in his 1810 book, The Organon of the Healing Art 6th edition. From all the symptomatic vibration I know that the underlying imputed miasm still remains, and deep-seated ailment can be corrected only by removing the deeper disturbance of the vital force. Now although you have the correct nosodes, I believe you have used the wrong sarcodes and certainly your dilution is not enough. So you need to re-engage your spiritual interpretation to analyze these disturbances, carefully reformulate your sarcodes and dilute to at lease 17-20X.

I hope that this clarifies it for everyone.

Peace!

Excellent job by the editor!

Brilliant

Matt:
I just realized that given Steve McIntyre’s recent work the title for this post should be changed to “Paleoclimatology”. I think most of the above comments should still be relevant.

Considering its importance, it should remain as a top post for several days.

Perfect!

Merely twenty-four hours, and I can see clearly now: I was mistaken.
.
You have squared the circle.
Pi is no longer a concern;
Curry needs no posts re ‘Uncertainty.’
.
radially, John

I am puzzled.

What is the significance of exactly 9 empty paragraphs? Why not 10, or 8, or even breaks rather than paragraphs… so perhaps 8.5?

Is it s clever Beatles reference? Knowing our host, I doubt it.

Is it because of the Oriental alternative views on 9, with the Chinese considering it lucky whilst the Japanese eschew it?

Or is it some Briggsian mathematical reference… 9 is after all the first odd number which is non-prime.

It is mystical, I tells ya, mystical.

Is Nothing sacred?

I’m sorry, sir. You didn’t dilute your concepts enough. It felt like I’d been hit over the head with a hammer!

Please be more careful in the future and spend a little more time diluting your thoughts.