Mike Petro wrote:
> 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.


Space Cowboy wrote:
> I just asked why you think the West has to validate anything the East
> does in science? You made the statement, not me. There I go again
> twisting your words when you meant Chinese and non Chinese. Then
> explain too us the difference between Chinese science and non Chinese
> science since you think it makes a difference in your evaluation of
> 'puerh medical studies'. We spend part of the weekend and this week
> and your use of validated scientific references and it boils down to
> what culture you're talking about.

Umm, yes, you are twisting things around again. "I just asked why..."
is a false statement. You didnt ask a thing, you just ranted a while!
There was not a single question mark in the whole post.

My original statement (see above) said it all, I dont care to
elaborate, especially when it feels like you are only trying to start a
fight over something I have no interest in debating. My stance is that
I am not convinced, one way or another, end of subject.

Jim, your just trying to goad me and I aint biting....

Bye Jim