"Dominic T." > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>> I say that again and again - adding electrolites BEFORE OR DURING
>> EXTRACTION
>> is a well established technique. Chemists know that and know how to
>> measure
>> that effect.
>> Not so with adding electrolites AFTER, "APRE", POST - factum.
>> How can I illustrate this so we don't go back to this again? We all know
>> that giving antibiotics to someone who has a bad case of pneumonia can
>> save
>> his life. Does that also mean that we won't be surprised if injecting
>> pennicyllin into a corpse would revive the dead?
>
> I think we all understand that, however I think you are trumping this
> up a bit too much. Adding salt (or sugar) to a tomato after it has been
> picked enhances its flavors, now salt (or sugar) wasn't added during
> the growing process but AFTER, APRE, POST - factum and it has enhanced
> the flavor.

Adding salt to tomato enhance the perceived flavor by (among other things)
adding electrolites into water-based extraction process (what do you think
salive is for?) So it is nit AFET, APRE, POST adding.


>
> Again, and as I said from the beginning, none of this seems new or
> groundbreaking to me. I think it much ado about nothing. I don't say
> that in a mean or demeaning way, and I certainly do not mean to
> offend... but I think that no matter how you come at this, it comes
> back to one of two ideas:
>
> 1.) The tomato example from above, where the flavor has been enhanced
> after the fact.
>
> or
>
> 2.) Homeopathy, where the least amount of some substance is supposed to
> have the greatest effect. And to the point of complete absense being
> the "best."

First of all it was not I who discovered this (and I use the word discovery
without hesitation), but DogMa.
Second - tomato example has nothing to do witth this - see above.
Third - I would not even touch homeopathy as an argument here precisely
because its mechanism were never understood or even expalined - that is why
allopaths (the "normal" doctors) still make an argument that homeopathy is
cookery and until today it is not accepted by AMA as "scientific" medicine
and that is why your insurance company never pays for homeopathic
treatments.

>
> I believe in the former as homeopathy makes no logical or scientific
> sense. Just my 2 cents on the matter.

I happen to work right now side-by-side with one of the greatest minds of
our times - the guy who founded Cetus Corp and under whose supervision the
PCR was invented for which Cetus scientists recei\ved 1992 Nobel prize. His
name is Peter Farley and guess what he does after all that spectacular
success? He leads a company that combines homeopathic approach with
traditional Chinese medicine.
And as opposed to your 2 cents this is multi-million dollar effort.

>
> - Dominic
> Drinking: Pu-Erh Tuocha (2nd infusion)
>

Sasha.