Space Cowboy wrote:

> I think it disingenuous quoting scientific references
> to prove your point waving a wand proclaiming them indisputable and
> then waving it again and saying other references are disputable.

There you go twisting words to suit your purpose again. Why must you
always attack? Isnt it enough to just disagree and state your point?

I never proclaimed anything to be indisputable; I simply said I found
collaborating studies, which BTW is more than you ever produced. Most
intelligent tea drinkers have learned that there is a tremendous amount
of disinformation about tea out there. I have learned to look for
independently collaborated findings before I put too much faith in
something. In the case of caffeine solubility I did find that
collaboration.

As for the "puerh medical studies" that I don't totally embrace yet,
they are MUCH more subjective than chemical analysis, especially if
done buy someone who stands to profit from the results. Additional
skepticism is in order IMHO. Again, independent collaboration from
non-Chinese sources is in order since the Chinese have a vested
interest in promoting puerh.

Mike