Space Cowboy wrote:
> I know that taste is proportional in the sense there is no
> fundamental difference in taste no matter what method or how I
> brew the tea. As soon as the water hits the tea all the taste
> components come into play.

Then give me a method of brewing Sencha that uses boiling water.
This would free me from having to hover over a pot of heating
water waiting for a precise temperature. Naturally, I'll want it
to taste as lovely as when brewed with 160 degree water.

--crymad

You said in other posts you didn't give much credence to the medical
claims made by scientific research for puerh. So you accept a
meaningless factoid but not a body of work? You can't explain why
multiple infusions can cause caffeine reactions. I can. You can't
explain why puerh has no caffeine effects. I can.

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:
> Just for the record, you have NEVER heard me make a "medicinal" claim
> about puerh, ever, and explaining multiple infusions was never my
> argument. I can explain them I just cant find any hard scientific data
> on the subject.
>
> My argument was with your statement "I think caffeine is directly
> proportional to taste" and the Francis Leggett study, amongst others,
> proves otherwise, it's that simple and that's the extent of my
> argument. Arguing with you any further about it won't prove a thing,
> even when proof is presented you wont acknowledge it, so what's the
> point of arguing with you?
>
> Cheers Dude........

How many people want me to **** them off? Okay if you ask for it.
Boiling water is for your health. IMHO anecdotal experience I don't
think water temperature is that much of a variable when making tea.
You allow me to taste your desired result I'll use boiling water and
come pretty close. You can check my posts from the past. At some
point the kettle will cool to 160. You should really be making tea
according to your taste and not some percentage formula based on
differential rates of extraction. If you do use that formula you will
have to boil your water. Also note this formula doesn't have a clue
about what you mean by 'lovely'.

Jim

crymad wrote:
> Space Cowboy wrote:
> > I know that taste is proportional in the sense there is no
> > fundamental difference in taste no matter what method or how I
> > brew the tea. As soon as the water hits the tea all the taste
> > components come into play.
>
> Then give me a method of brewing Sencha that uses boiling water.
> This would free me from having to hover over a pot of heating
> water waiting for a precise temperature. Naturally, I'll want it
> to taste as lovely as when brewed with 160 degree water.
>
> --crymad

Space Cowboy wrote:
> IMHO anecdotal experience I don't
> think water temperature is that much of a variable when making tea.

Please tell us more....


Mike

Space Cowboy wrote:
> How many people want me to **** them off? Okay if you ask for
> it. Boiling water is for your health. IMHO anecdotal
> experience I don't think water temperature is that much of a
> variable when making tea. You allow me to taste your desired
> result I'll use boiling water and come pretty close. You can
> check my posts from the past. At some point the kettle will
> cool to 160.

I meant brewing Sencha using boiling water, not water that has
boiled and cooled to 160. If indeed, as you say, "there is no
fundamental difference in taste no matter what method or how [one]
brews the tea", then water temperature shouldn't matter.

> You should really be making tea according to your taste and not
> some percentage formula based on differential rates of
> extraction. If you do use that formula you will have to boil
> your water. Also note this formula doesn't have a clue about
> what you mean by 'lovely'.

That's just my poetic way of saying the tongue is a finer
instrument for flavor analysis than any machine. Certainly you
agree with this.

--crymad

>
> Jim
>
> crymad wrote:
>
>> Space Cowboy wrote:
>>
>>> I know that taste is proportional in the sense there is no
>>> fundamental difference in taste no matter what method or
>>> how I brew the tea. As soon as the water hits the tea all
>>> the taste components come into play.
>>
>> Then give me a method of brewing Sencha that uses boiling
>> water. This would free me from having to hover over a pot of
>> heating water waiting for a precise temperature. Naturally,
>> I'll want it to taste as lovely as when brewed with 160
>> degree water.
>>
>> --crymad
>
>

I have. Check my previous posts on the subject. In one case there is
a guy claiming he could taste the difference in tea brewed by one
degreee increments.

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:
> Space Cowboy wrote:
> > IMHO anecdotal experience I don't
> > think water temperature is that much of a variable when making tea.
>
> Please tell us more....
>
>
> Mike

If you hang your hat on it it has to be a meaningless factoid. I think
I remember you saying you dismissed the medicinal claims and not that
the jury was still out. Maybe you can Google link what you said in the
past of the subject. You can remember better what you said and when
than me. In science all you have to do is find a contradiction to
refute a claim or at least require a modification. You can't explain
multiple infusions by your references. As it turns out you can't most
things by those references. My black puer around bedtime does NOT give
me the caffeine jitters like other teas including green puerh. That is
supported by my arguments heretofore and your admitted body of
conflicting scientific research on puerh which still supports my claim.

PS:
I don't see any medicinal claims for puerh that haven't been made by
tea in general elsewhere. True story, I just visited my brother who
runs laboratory analysis for a major medical research center. He told
me he had been drinking tea for 6 weeks and lowered his LDL under 200
for the first time in his life. Our family history points in that
direction with diabetes, etc. I sent him a cross section of teas
including white which he knew about from the literature and he will
monitor his biometrics. Too bad I don't live near by because I could
get any tea analysis done I wanted.

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:
> Space Cowboy wrote:
> > You said in other posts you didn't give much credence to the medical
> > claims made by scientific research for puerh.
>
> True, I do not trust a lot of the medical research talking about weight
> loss, hangover cures, and cholesterol reduction because another study
> always seems to come out the next week that says the exact opposite.
> Yes, I believe there is something there but I am waiting for a highly
> credible study before I hang my hat on it.
>
> > So you accept a
> > meaningless factoid but not a body of work?
>
> The studies I presented about tea chemistry are pretty straightforward
> and not nearly as controversial. "Factoid" and "body of work"
> are your interpretations, not mine. What collaboration did you provide,
> I must have missed it?
>
> >You can't explain why
> > multiple infusions can cause caffeine reactions. I can.
>
> Don't need to explain it, I never contested it.
>
>
> > You can't
> > explain why puerh has no caffeine effects. I can.
>
> Don't need to explain it, Puerh DOES indeed have caffeine effects, I
> have never stated otherwise. I experience them almost everyday.
>
> All of the above has nothing to do with the original disagreement, why
> do you keep trying to change the subject?
>
> Mike

Space Cowboy wrote:
> A concentration is an
> average of all components you can taste and not some meaningless
> scientific factoid that claims tea taste depends on differential rates
> of solution which you could never taste from one split second to the
> next.

On a lexicographic note, I'd like to point out that "factoid" has a slightly
different etymological meaning. (-Accepting, per a famous literary
character, that words mean what we mean them to mean.) The term was coined
by Norman Mailer in 1973 to encompass snippets of information that have
significance only because they have been published - like much social
gossip. Science hews to a somewhat more primal standard.

-DM

On 24 Aug 2005 16:24:48 -0700, "Space Cowboy" >
wrote:

>If you hang your hat on it it has to be a meaningless factoid.

Lets not get personal now Jim, I take that as an insult. You are also
an easy target if we go down that road.


>I think
>I remember you saying you dismissed the medicinal claims and not that
>the jury was still out.

You memory is faulty Jim, that's not what I said, search it yourself
if you doubt me. Besides what difference does it make, it appears that
your only use for my comments is to use them against me on some future
date anyway.

My exact words were " I don't think there is really any conclusive
evidence but there does seem to be a smoking gun. "

I went on to say:

"As for the slimming claims I do not put much faith in them. Anyone
who has met me in person would question those claims as well. I am a
very large man, both tall and wide, and drinking puerh does not
appeared to have changed that at all, and I do drink a tremendous
amount of puerh."

>You can't explain
>multiple infusions by your references.

You keep going back to that, it's nothing more than a Red Herring, I
it is irrelevant to my "caffeine is not linear within taste" argument.

> As it turns out you can't most
>things by those references. My black puer around bedtime does NOT give
>me the caffeine jitters like other teas including green puerh. That is
>supported by my arguments heretofore and your admitted body of
>conflicting scientific research on puerh which still supports my claim.

Why should your subjective judgments carry any more weight than you
give to mine?

Lets move on Jim this is starting to get boring. At least in the
beginning it was mildly thought provoking.
Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net
"In this work, when it shall be found that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed."
Samuel Johnson, 1775, upon finishing his dictionary.

It has risen to the level of blemishes. I now use it with affectional
connotation with the following modification. In the future I will use
hanging factoid (with affection) because that implies some legitimacy
with the implied Usenet caveat while meaningless factoid is redundant
and irrelevant. 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. All
initial bodies of scientific work are inherently contradictory.
They're a better indicator for detecting underlying principles than
hanging factoids. However hanging factoids historically does cause
science to come up with better explanations. I stayed with the thread
because Google never forgets and there is no science to tell us how to
brew a cup of tea. At his point I would add a DUH but I allow for
those pesky references. IMHO I think tea taste is proportional no
matter how you make it. For the past couple of years I've been
drinking teas off the top, leaves in cup, no stirring, and those last
sips tasting like the first, which leads me to observing the saturation
phenomena possibly also occuring in gongfu. Not in every case but
something is going on. One hallmark of science is observation.

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2005 16:24:48 -0700, "Space Cowboy" >
> wrote:
>
> >If you hang your hat on it it has to be a meaningless factoid.
>
> Lets not get personal now Jim, I take that as an insult. You are also
> an easy target if we go down that road.
>
>
> >I think
> >I remember you saying you dismissed the medicinal claims and not that
> >the jury was still out.
>
> You memory is faulty Jim, that's not what I said, search it yourself
> if you doubt me. Besides what difference does it make, it appears that
> your only use for my comments is to use them against me on some future
> date anyway.
>
> My exact words were " I don't think there is really any conclusive
> evidence but there does seem to be a smoking gun. "
>
> I went on to say:
>
> "As for the slimming claims I do not put much faith in them. Anyone
> who has met me in person would question those claims as well. I am a
> very large man, both tall and wide, and drinking puerh does not
> appeared to have changed that at all, and I do drink a tremendous
> amount of puerh."
>
> >You can't explain
> >multiple infusions by your references.
>
> You keep going back to that, it's nothing more than a Red Herring, I
> it is irrelevant to my "caffeine is not linear within taste" argument.
>
> > As it turns out you can't most
> >things by those references. My black puer around bedtime does NOT give
> >me the caffeine jitters like other teas including green puerh. That is
> >supported by my arguments heretofore and your admitted body of
> >conflicting scientific research on puerh which still supports my claim.
>
> Why should your subjective judgments carry any more weight than you
> give to mine?
>
> Lets move on Jim this is starting to get boring. At least in the
> beginning it was mildly thought provoking.
> Mike Petro
> http://www.pu-erh.net
> "In this work, when it shall be found that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed."
> Samuel Johnson, 1775, upon finishing his dictionary.

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

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

Space Cowboy wrote:
> 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

Your debate, not mine.......

Bye Jim

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.

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:
> Space Cowboy wrote:
> Your debate, not mine.......
> Bye Jim

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

So we still can assume you wave a magic wand for cultural scientific
validation because even the second time around you hid behind some
grammatical camouflage you construed because you conveniently left out
posts in between which put the question in context. I truly find your
reference to Chinese and non Chinese science oddly a little xenophobic
even after following the money which we know all about in Western
research.

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:
> 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

On 25 Aug 2005 16:47:34 -0700, "Space Cowboy" >
wrote:

>So we still can assume you wave a magic wand for cultural scientific
>validation because even the second time around you hid behind some
>grammatical camouflage you construed because you conveniently left out
>posts in between which put the question in context. I truly find your
>reference to Chinese and non Chinese science oddly a little xenophobic
>even after following the money which we know all about in Western
>research.

Jim,

First you demand that I "stand behind every medical claim made about
puerh" THEN you want me to elaborate on why I don't buy into every
medical claim made about puerh. You have proven that you don't care
what stance I take, you just want to use me for a dartboard.

I am not playing that game, go get your jollies by harassing someone
else. Assume whatever you want, you will anyway. I apologize for
making the mistake of thinking you could carry on a civil debate.

Over and out.....

Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net
"In this work, when it shall be found that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed."
Samuel Johnson, 1775, upon finishing his dictionary.

Space Cowboy > wrote:
>I just asked why you think the West has to validate anything the East
>does in science?

Because that's how science works. A scientific principle is universal
and therefore everyone can conduct the same experiment and so everyone
validates one another.

In the case of something that is new and still somewhat unproven, it
is important that validation be done from a number of different corners
to make absolutely sure that a thing is accurate.

I strongly recommend reading Feynman's book "Surely You're Joking, Mr.
Feynman" on the subject of the spin of the electron. Turned out that
something that had been taken for granted for many years was wrong,
because the original results were marginal but made sense and nobody
bothered redoing the experiment.

The great thing about science is that everyone can redo any experiment
over and over and get the same results.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

You still didn't answer the postulated general question derived from
the misconception that scientific work on Puerh in the East (Chinese)
isn't valid till given a blessing of approval by the West (non
Chinese). The West may simply have no interest in the subject and the
East can validate their own science.

Jim

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Space Cowboy > wrote:
> >I just asked why you think the West has to validate anything the East
> >does in science?
>
> Because that's how science works. A scientific principle is universal
> and therefore everyone can conduct the same experiment and so everyone
> validates one another.

>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.

Most of TCM does not go through any scientific analysis to see if there
are any positive or negative effects. The entire system is derrived
from unsubstantiated, anecdotal "information" that was supposedly
passed from generation to generation. In fact, now, most Chinese
choose to use Western medicine because they can actually see results.
It can also be said that many of the people that use TCM are the ones
that cannot readily afford how expensive Western medicine is here.
With TCM, the patient is told to drink some sort of tea (a lot of water
with fresh ginger added and all kinds of random debris such as bone),
get lots of rest, and eat a lot of vegetables...when you go to the
doctor in the west, what does he tell you? He says, drink lots of
fluids, get a lot of rest, and eat well.

There are too many variables to account for to be able to actually get
a good study from this. You also have to consider the incubation
period of certain illnesses and the normal course of the illness;
usually the last variable is the killer. The common cold lasts for 5-7
days. Many Chinese doctors say that they have the cure to the common
cold...they tell you to drink the tea for 5-7 days. See a problem with
this logic?

I recommend you guys check out this website; it has all kinds of stuff
about medical quackery and has some articles on Chinese medicine.

http://www.quackwatch.com

Anyway, as for the pu'er medical debate, in HK they sell pu'er in the
medicine shops (Eastern and Western) to cure stomach ailments, and as
an aid to help lose weight. Finding scientific studies, especially in
China, on this will probably be just as difficult as finding some
studies that prove that drinking the dung of some rare animal will cure
impotency. All I know, through my observations, is that it makes my
stomach feel damn fine after drinking it, and that's good enough for
me. heh.

>I just asked why you think the West has to validate anything the East
>does in science?

It ain't for the money, it's for safety; well, could be a little for
the money. Many people, such as people with some sort of incurable
disease, would easily buy into some sort of magical, mystical Eastern
cure.

>You still didn't answer the postulated general question derived from
>the misconception that scientific work on Puerh in the East (Chinese)
>isn't valid till given a blessing of approval by the West (non
>Chinese). The West may simply have no interest in the subject and the
>East can validate their own science.

It's very difficult to do honest experiments in China. There are
thousands upon thousands of fradulent claims here about nearly every
subject that you could possibly imagine from hygiene to actual
"science." The main concern is credibility here. A "doctorate degree"
can be obtained if you pay the right person or legally within 2 years
and it only involves passing an exam and writing (or copying) someone
elses work. I don't think Mike is being xenophobic at all in his ideas
about Eastern science; he's being real about it. It's hard to explain
unless you've lived here for a period of time....

But, trust me, you want the FDA to examine their medicinal claims.
Here they (mostly HK..so it isn't coming from within, obviously) are
finding more and more stuff over here that cause cancer that people
imbibe daily. The newest was they found malachite-green in fish that
they were exporting; a substance banned by most countries of the world
decades ago...even in China. Some restaurants/exporters here were
adding it into their fish tanks so they wouldn't have to change the
water as much...thus saving money.

The magical, mystery that is the East is a bunch of hogwash. It's
about as mysterious as the back of a dollar bill...the only thing they
are concerned with.

>My grandfather had a much better one. He suggested drinking a quart
>of bourbon, and when you wake up a week later your cold will be cured.

A Russian guy that lives in my hometown claims he hasn't had a cold in
25 years. He firmly believes in preventative medicine, so each morning
he takes a raw clove of garlic and mixes it with a shot of vodka and
downs it. He's close to 90 years old and can run like you wouldn't
believe.

Maybe we're drinking the wrong substance for health. heh.

When I was growing up the cure for the cold was a 'hot toddy'. I
couldn't wait to get sick. It contained a liquour. You go to the
doctor you walk away with a prescription. OTC cold remedies is big
business.

Jim

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Mydnight > wrote:
> > Many Chinese doctors say that they have the cure to the common
> >cold...they tell you to drink the tea for 5-7 days. See a problem with
> >this logic?
>
> My grandfather had a much better one. He suggested drinking a quart
> of bourbon, and when you wake up a week later your cold will be cured.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mydnight > wrote:
>>My grandfather had a much better one. He suggested drinking a quart
>>of bourbon, and when you wake up a week later your cold will be cured.
>
>A Russian guy that lives in my hometown claims he hasn't had a cold in
>25 years. He firmly believes in preventative medicine, so each morning
>he takes a raw clove of garlic and mixes it with a shot of vodka and
>downs it. He's close to 90 years old and can run like you wouldn't
>believe.

This is effective because colds are transmitted by airborne viruses.
When an infected person sneezes or coughs, a fine aerosol of mucus
droplets is scattered all over the area, and these droplets contain
the virus. Breathing them in causes infection.

With a large amount of garlic, people stay so far away from you that
you are no longer within range of this spray. The cashier at the
grocery store uses a long pole to push your change back to you.
Children run away when you walk down the street. Even beggars and
panhandlers, who are not themselves known for particularly good odor,
avoid your presence. No doubt the vodka increases absorption of the
garlic oils.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

LOL--one of these days I'll be brave enough to try this method.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Mydnight > wrote:
>>> My grandfather had a much better one. He suggested drinking a quart
>>> of bourbon, and when you wake up a week later your cold will be
>>> cured.
>>
>> A Russian guy that lives in my hometown claims he hasn't had a cold
>> in 25 years. He firmly believes in preventative medicine, so each
>> morning he takes a raw clove of garlic and mixes it with a shot of
>> vodka and downs it. He's close to 90 years old and can run like you
>> wouldn't believe.
>
> This is effective because colds are transmitted by airborne viruses.
> When an infected person sneezes or coughs, a fine aerosol of mucus
> droplets is scattered all over the area, and these droplets contain
> the virus. Breathing them in causes infection.
>
> With a large amount of garlic, people stay so far away from you that
> you are no longer within range of this spray. The cashier at the
> grocery store uses a long pole to push your change back to you.
> Children run away when you walk down the street. Even beggars and
> panhandlers, who are not themselves known for particularly good odor,
> avoid your presence. No doubt the vodka increases absorption of the
> garlic oils.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."