If puerh lowers BP in controlled studies then you don't need to know
the chemistry to make the claim. The experiment should be repeatable
and results reproducable to substantiate the claim no matter where the
money leads. I don't buy into the argument that eastern science is
inferior to western science. In fact I think they have a leg up such
as Chinese patent medicines concentrates derived from herbal medicine
which the last time I checked was $20b/year. I know puerh has long
been used in TCM. I'd guess most claims are from TCM. I know Mao said
TCM should be taught side-by-side with Western medicine. In practice
it is Western medicine that predominates. However Western medicine is
still used to validate TCM claims as policy. I don't feel like plowing
through literature to see where it is at especially since it won't make
my cup of tea taste any different. For grins I'll do some Chinese
lookup of puerh and caffeine and let you know if anything pops out
which you can deny as being unscientific.

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:
....Space Cowboy...
>
> 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