This post concerns water and tea. Allow me to begin with an analogical
digression.

Several decades ago, as a pre-professional nerd, I read that sugar is
critical in many foods not as a source of sweetness per se, but as a
flavor potentiator like unto salt or MSG. This seemed possibly relevant
to the consuming problem of rapid flavor decay in so-called Juicy Fruit
gum. So I took a wad of post-sapid chicle, wrapped it around a pinch of
table sugar, and was astonished to find it entirely revivified.
Fortunately for Wrigley's fortunes (and my remaining teeth), I was too
lazy to make this a regular practice, and none of my cohort expressed
interest in such a life-extension methodology.

Back to tea: I keep being disappointed on home-brewing rare and fine
wonders that delighted in-store or at others' homes. Water is clearly a
factor, most likely due to absence of needed solutes rather than
presence of contaminants. But I'm too lazy and cheap to schlep gallons
of bottled solvent, and also (after several years in the UK) averse to
de-scaling the kettle. So of late, I've been trying some post-brew
experiments. These have taken the form of adding a dash of bottled water
to the gaiwan before dousing with hot tap water. I use mineral rather
than spring water, to get a good slug of ions in the small addendum.

This has worked pretty well. So far, I've used Gerolsteiner, which may
not be an optimal mineral balance. (It is, however, the only one
available here in the woods.) It's still less than convenient, and makes
it that bit harder to control brewing temperature.

So recently I've tried adding mineral water to the finished brew. This
goes against common wisdom about the effect of various solutes
(including oxygen) on extraction chemistry. -Common wisdom, I might add,
absent widely published evidence. Thus far, the effect has been just as
beneficial. Today, for example, I brewed a sample of Old Dong Ting from
NYC's wonderful Tea Gallery. (Disclosu commercial connection; I spend
money there at every opportunity.) This exquisite tea went "flat" after
just three steeps in tap water. Adding a few ml of mineral water to the
poured cup added/restored multiple layers of sweetness, fruit,
complexity. And seemed to smooth over hints of roughness, somehow
bringing the smoke/roast into better balance with more intrinsic leaf
notes. (Kind of like the difference between 10- and 15-year-old
Laphroaig, for those of that persuasion.) I took out five more very
tasty steeps before going out to grease the Kioti.

Now, here's the punch line: the bio-effect of a little added mineral
water seemed to persist. I alternated "spiked" and tap-water brews,
rinsing the cup between, and found them almost indistinguishable.
Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising: calcium is a dominant mediator of
cellular and neural activity, and charging the taste buds and proximal
tissue with divalent ions might have a persistent effect. Any biologists
here able to comment?

Anyway, the provisional conclusion: a very small addition of minerals
can apparently have a profound, persistent and positive effect on
perceived quality in brewed tea, without much effort. Your mouthfeel may
vary.

-DM

Mydnight wrote:
> Without all that scientific stuff, this very same thing was told to me
> by an old man in the Sichuan province. He said the reason people like
> to use natural "mountain" water (shan quan shui) is because it's filled
> with many different types of minerals, and it's the minerals that bring
> out the tea's flavor more. Very interesting stuff.

I have no idea whatsoever about anything written about by the OP, in
fact I'm still confused... but I have found that PA spring water always
turns out the best tea over my other alternatives.

As far as odd Juicy Fruit experiments and swishing of mineral water,
etc.... I still am at a loss for a point to all of that.

- Dominic

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 17:03:55 GMT, DogMa >
wrote:

>a very small addition of minerals
>can apparently have a profound, persistent and positive effect on
>perceived quality in brewed tea

You could try some sugar, too! :-)

Ian
--
http://sundry.ws/

Dominic T. wrote:
> I have no idea whatsoever about anything written about by the OP, in
> fact I'm still confused... but I have found that PA spring water always
> turns out the best tea over my other alternatives.
>
> As far as odd Juicy Fruit experiments and swishing of mineral water,
> etc.... I still am at a loss for a point to all of that.

My point was that those whose tap water is too pure to make good tea
don't have to bring home a lot of spring water with a slight mineral
content. Instead, a small addition of "mineral water" may work just as
well - even if added to brewed tea (rather than the kettle). The
preamble was to suggest a mechanism: flavor potentiation, rather than an
effect on the chemistry of extraction.

-DM

DogMa wrote:
> My point was that those whose tap water is too pure to make good tea
> don't have to bring home a lot of spring water with a slight mineral
> content. Instead, a small addition of "mineral water" may work just as
> well - even if added to brewed tea (rather than the kettle). The
> preamble was to suggest a mechanism: flavor potentiation, rather than an
> effect on the chemistry of extraction.

I guess I understand, I'm unsure if you are just making things overly
complex on purpose or are on about something over my head. If you are
basically saying that people using "pure" water should just add a tiny
amount of a spring water or water containing minerals to their pure
water *after* it has been boiled to gain a flavor "enhancement" then we
are on the same page... but I'm still unsure of the theory.

Traditionally mountain spring water was used, and I just keep with that
whenever I can as it does produce a better brew... however, I would be
at a loss to say I could nail it if I were given a blind test. I would
think it exactly the same with your proposed theory. I would highly
doubt anyone would tell the difference between the "pure" water and the
one with a splash of mineral water added in at the end.

If anything I think truly pure water would produce the perfect
reproduction of the tea leaf being brewed. Just properly oxygenated
pure water. Water is the one area of tea that I tend to not fret over.
Unless it has some overt foul or strong taste on it's own, I find that
all but the most delicate of teas are going to shine through on their
own merit. But that's just me, and I have no scientific nor Juicy Fruit
experiments to back my claims up

- Dominic

On 5 Mar 2006 09:19:49 -0800, "Mydnight" > wrote:

>>Anyway, the provisional conclusion: a very small addition of minerals
>>can apparently have a profound, persistent and positive effect on
>>perceived quality in brewed tea, without much effort. Your mouthfeel may
>>vary.
>
>Without all that scientific stuff, this very same thing was told to me
>by an old man in the Sichuan province. He said the reason people like
>to use natural "mountain" water (shan quan shui) is because it's filled
>with many different types of minerals, and it's the minerals that bring
>out the tea's flavor more. Very interesting stuff.

It is my understanding that TDS directly relates to mineral content in
the water.

I find this most interesting as I am getting 2 sample bottles of
Spring Water delivered from a local bottling company. Shenandoah
Spring Water has a TDS of 92ppm and Mountain Valley Spring Water has a
TDS of 268ppm. I plan on doing side by side testing using the same tea
to see if I can tell the difference. The winner will be delivered to
me every month.

http://www.shenspring.com/products.html

The next question is which tea will make the best litmus paper...


--
Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net

"DogMa" > wrote in message

> My point was that those whose tap water is too pure to make good tea
> don't have to bring home a lot of spring water with a slight mineral
> content.

Well, the tap water is not wonderful, but it tends to be much more loaded in
minerals than most spring waters. I guess not all minerals have the same
effect. What about the ph of the water ?

> Instead, a small addition of "mineral water" may work just as
> well - even if added to brewed tea

In old times, salt was added to tea. Maybe for that reason.

Kuri

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:07:19 +0900, "kuri" > wrote:

>tap water is not wonderful, but it tends to be much more loaded in
>minerals than most spring waters.

Tap water around here is also loaded with chlorine. I use a Brita
pitcher for my tea water, which seems to work pretty well.

Ian
--
http://sundry.ws/

Hi -

Missed you this time of my visiting NY and Tea Gallery.
The idea of mineral water being added to already brewed tea is very
interesting. The majority of the replies seem to miss the fact that seem the
most important to me - that opposite to adding minerals during brewing this
method cannot influence the extraction. So, it may improve 1. taste
mediation or (my current thinking) 2. increase dissoacoative properties of
water as a solvent and thus prevent the formation of chemical complexes and
therefore help "presenting" the extracts to the tastebuds in a better way.
Or both.
One way or another - it would be interesting to study the chemistry and
biomediation of these post-brew additives. May also be a serious
contribution not only to tea but to drinks in general and may be even food.

Good job, DogMa xian sheng.

Sasha.


"DogMa" > wrote in message
...
> This post concerns water and tea. Allow me to begin with an analogical
> digression.
>
> Several decades ago, as a pre-professional nerd, I read that sugar is
> critical in many foods not as a source of sweetness per se, but as a
> flavor potentiator like unto salt or MSG. This seemed possibly relevant to
> the consuming problem of rapid flavor decay in so-called Juicy Fruit gum.
> So I took a wad of post-sapid chicle, wrapped it around a pinch of table
> sugar, and was astonished to find it entirely revivified. Fortunately for
> Wrigley's fortunes (and my remaining teeth), I was too lazy to make this a
> regular practice, and none of my cohort expressed interest in such a
> life-extension methodology.
>
> Back to tea: I keep being disappointed on home-brewing rare and fine
> wonders that delighted in-store or at others' homes. Water is clearly a
> factor, most likely due to absence of needed solutes rather than presence
> of contaminants. But I'm too lazy and cheap to schlep gallons of bottled
> solvent, and also (after several years in the UK) averse to de-scaling the
> kettle. So of late, I've been trying some post-brew experiments. These
> have taken the form of adding a dash of bottled water to the gaiwan before
> dousing with hot tap water. I use mineral rather than spring water, to get
> a good slug of ions in the small addendum.
>
> This has worked pretty well. So far, I've used Gerolsteiner, which may not
> be an optimal mineral balance. (It is, however, the only one available
> here in the woods.) It's still less than convenient, and makes it that bit
> harder to control brewing temperature.
>
> So recently I've tried adding mineral water to the finished brew. This
> goes against common wisdom about the effect of various solutes (including
> oxygen) on extraction chemistry. -Common wisdom, I might add, absent
> widely published evidence. Thus far, the effect has been just as
> beneficial. Today, for example, I brewed a sample of Old Dong Ting from
> NYC's wonderful Tea Gallery. (Disclosu commercial connection; I spend
> money there at every opportunity.) This exquisite tea went "flat" after
> just three steeps in tap water. Adding a few ml of mineral water to the
> poured cup added/restored multiple layers of sweetness, fruit, complexity.
> And seemed to smooth over hints of roughness, somehow bringing the
> smoke/roast into better balance with more intrinsic leaf notes. (Kind of
> like the difference between 10- and 15-year-old Laphroaig, for those of
> that persuasion.) I took out five more very tasty steeps before going out
> to grease the Kioti.
>
> Now, here's the punch line: the bio-effect of a little added mineral water
> seemed to persist. I alternated "spiked" and tap-water brews, rinsing the
> cup between, and found them almost indistinguishable. Perhaps this
> shouldn't be surprising: calcium is a dominant mediator of cellular and
> neural activity, and charging the taste buds and proximal tissue with
> divalent ions might have a persistent effect. Any biologists here able to
> comment?
>
> Anyway, the provisional conclusion: a very small addition of minerals can
> apparently have a profound, persistent and positive effect on perceived
> quality in brewed tea, without much effort. Your mouthfeel may vary.
>
> -DM

[dog ma speaks of dabbing in a bit of mineral water to rejuvenate and
inspire his cup]

snip

> Today, for example, I brewed a sample of Old Dong Ting from
> NYC's wonderful Tea Gallery. (Disclosu commercial connection; I spend
> money there at every opportunity.) This exquisite tea went "flat" after
> just three steeps in tap water. Adding a few ml of mineral water to the
> poured cup added/restored multiple layers of sweetness, fruit,
> complexity. And seemed to smooth over hints of roughness, somehow
> bringing the smoke/roast into better balance with more intrinsic leaf
> notes. (Kind of like the difference between 10- and 15-year-old
> Laphroaig, for those of that persuasion.) I took out five more very
> tasty steeps before going out to grease the Kioti.

Extraordinary. I LOVE that Old Dong Ting, it's so rich and roasty and
balanced and friendly. I'm going to try your mineral water experiment first
thing.

> Now, here's the punch line: the bio-effect of a little added mineral
> water seemed to persist. I alternated "spiked" and tap-water brews,
> rinsing the cup between, and found them almost indistinguishable.
> Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising: calcium is a dominant mediator of
> cellular and neural activity, and charging the taste buds and proximal
> tissue with divalent ions might have a persistent effect. Any biologists
> here able to comment?

Putting the technical chemistry aside because it ain't my thing, are you
saying that you added a bit of mineral water *once* and its effect persisted
through steeps, even after rinsing? That the bit of mineral water affected
the tea leaves *and* your tastebuds? Anyway, I'll be experimenting soon.

> Anyway, the provisional conclusion: a very small addition of minerals
> can apparently have a profound, persistent and positive effect on
> perceived quality in brewed tea, without much effort. Your mouthfeel may
> vary.

"Perceived," eh? Well that's good enough.

Michael

Michael Plant wrote:
> ... are you
> saying that you added a bit of mineral water *once* and its effect persisted
> through steeps, even after rinsing? That the bit of mineral water affected
> the tea leaves *and* your tastebuds? Anyway, I'll be experimenting soon.

Yes, especially the latter - it worked even when added mineral water
never touched the leaves. Implication: remanent effect on tongue
physiology and/or mental construction of taste experience.

-DM

DogMa > wrote:
>
>My point was that those whose tap water is too pure to make good tea
>don't have to bring home a lot of spring water with a slight mineral
>content. Instead, a small addition of "mineral water" may work just as
>well - even if added to brewed tea (rather than the kettle). The
>preamble was to suggest a mechanism: flavor potentiation, rather than an
> effect on the chemistry of extraction.

I think the effect you describe is very clear and has been documented
a lot in the last hundred years or so. You can read what Escoffier says
about how table salt affects other flavours besides just saltiness.

Try a pinch of baking powder, sea salt, or Burton Water Salts.

Also note that tea made with deionized water is pretty insipid. I tried
that once or twice here (my office has very nasty-tasting water but we
have a supply of distilled water).
--scott
(who misses Vichy water)

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

Mike Petro > wrote:
>
>It is my understanding that TDS directly relates to mineral content in
>the water.

Yes, but not in a very useful way. TDS says that if you evaporate the
water, this is how much residue you'll have left. It doesn't say anything
about the contents of that residue.

It could be salts that make the water hard, or other salts that make the
water soft. There's a huge variation in the different minerals that get
dissolved in waters.
--scott

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

Scott -

The fact that high mineral content helps EXTRACTION is well known and DogMa,
I am sure, is quite knowledgeable of that.
The fact that adding tiny amount of salts (literally micrograms) in any form
to ALREADY BREWED TEA noticeably benefits its taste is not at all well known
and if you can provide references to that it would be very helpful.
However, please, notice that we are talking here strictly about adding such
AFTER the extraction, not before or during.

The ability of salt to improve and affect other flavors is attributed to its
ability to make water a better solvent and EXTRACT such flavors during
cooking or chewing, but I never saw any references to salt or mineral
content measured in micrograms to affect the taste of the solution AFTER
extraction

Sasha.


"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> DogMa > wrote:
>>
>>My point was that those whose tap water is too pure to make good tea
>>don't have to bring home a lot of spring water with a slight mineral
>>content. Instead, a small addition of "mineral water" may work just as
>>well - even if added to brewed tea (rather than the kettle). The
>>preamble was to suggest a mechanism: flavor potentiation, rather than an
>> effect on the chemistry of extraction.
>
> I think the effect you describe is very clear and has been documented
> a lot in the last hundred years or so. You can read what Escoffier says
> about how table salt affects other flavours besides just saltiness.
>
> Try a pinch of baking powder, sea salt, or Burton Water Salts.
>
> Also note that tea made with deionized water is pretty insipid. I tried
> that once or twice here (my office has very nasty-tasting water but we
> have a supply of distilled water).
> --scott
> (who misses Vichy water)
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Alex Chaihorsky > wrote:
>
>The fact that high mineral content helps EXTRACTION is well known and DogMa,
>I am sure, is quite knowledgeable of that.
>The fact that adding tiny amount of salts (literally micrograms) in any form
>to ALREADY BREWED TEA noticeably benefits its taste is not at all well known
>and if you can provide references to that it would be very helpful.

I have no references specifically regarding tea. But it's fairly well
established that adding salt, for instance, changes the existing flavour
of a dish. Escoffier's _Modern Cookery_ might be one of the first places
this is mentioned.

>The ability of salt to improve and affect other flavors is attributed to its
>ability to make water a better solvent and EXTRACT such flavors during
>cooking or chewing, but I never saw any references to salt or mineral
>content measured in micrograms to affect the taste of the solution AFTER
>extraction

I don't think it _does_ make water that much more efficient. And I can
certainly say that it does nothing to keep pasta from sticking either, in
spite of the common wisdom about it doing so.

I'm not sure we're talking about micrograms here, though. I think we are
talking about milligrams, if not more. The actual volume of salts in some
mineral waters is quite high, to the point where Vichy, for example, actually
tastes smooth and almost salty.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Alex Chaihorsky > wrote:
>>
>>The fact that high mineral content helps EXTRACTION is well known and
>>DogMa,
>>I am sure, is quite knowledgeable of that.
>>The fact that adding tiny amount of salts (literally micrograms) in any
>>form
>>to ALREADY BREWED TEA noticeably benefits its taste is not at all well
>>known
>>and if you can provide references to that it would be very helpful.
>
> I have no references specifically regarding tea. But it's fairly well
> established that adding salt, for instance, changes the existing flavour
> of a dish. Escoffier's _Modern Cookery_ might be one of the first places
> this is mentioned.

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? Because that is what we
have here - apparent improvement of extraction (or its perception) AFTER the
extraction is already finished and solution is separated from


>
>>The ability of salt to improve and affect other flavors is attributed to
>>its
>>ability to make water a better solvent and EXTRACT such flavors during
>>cooking or chewing, but I never saw any references to salt or mineral
>>content measured in micrograms to affect the taste of the solution AFTER
>>extraction
>
> I don't think it _does_ make water that much more efficient.
>

Its not about what we _think_, its a scientific fact. Open any textbook on
water-based extraction and catalisis and find out. The dissociative quality
of water. i.e its ability to break up molecules of solids or in another
words - dissolve matter using HOH dipole is a well-established fact.
Chemistry is a science, not opinion.
In this case we may be dealing with very fine effects of electrolytes being
able to break up very complex (they are even called - "complexes" organic
makromolecules or agglomerates and thus improve the perception of taste.
Another compound that may have similar effect is alchohol. It would be
interesting if DogMa compares the effects of adding few mililitres of
mineral water and tiny amount of alchohol to the same flat brew and compare
the results.
Alchohol also dramatically improves dissociative properties of water,
expecially when it comes to organic extraction. That is why, BTW, almost all
perfumes and medical potions are alchohol -based.

Sasha.

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.

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."

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

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

"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.

> It would be interesting ... adding few mililitres of
> mineral water and tiny amount of alchohol to the same flat brew and compare
> the results.

Pretty good (hic). Does 90% alcohol sound about right?

"DogMa" > wrote in message
...
>> It would be interesting ... adding few mililitres of mineral water and
>> tiny amount of alchohol to the same flat brew and compare the results.
>
> Pretty good (hic). Does 90% alcohol sound about right?

Somewhere in that region, yes.

Sasha.

Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> 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 would like you to please tell me how the salts among other minerals,
added AFTER the fact are not simply enhancing the flavors present just
as in my example. You want to discredit my criticism of this theory,
but you have not directly refuted it. And if you reject that as a fair
appraisal of the argument, then the only option left to "explain"
DogMa's theory is exactly the same as the theories behind homeopathy.
Better yet, since it is not your "discovery," I would love to have
Dogma attempt to clear this up.

> 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.

I knew that anyone who could back DogMa's original statements had to
have some connection or belief in homeopathy because that was what it
was all basically based around. I'm not bashing that belief, I don't
personally lend it any credence. I also do not want to cast stones, but
while Peter Farley may be smart... I would believe he is cashing in on
a big payday based on the "in" thing right now. There is a lot of money
to be made in homeopathy and selling proven ancient remedies for a
massive windfall. Especially when I can go to my local chinese herb
shop and have them make me a remedy for pennies that actually contains
the ingredients in a decent quantity that are believed to help the
situation, not less of them for many dollars. Smart, yes. Businessman,
yes. Greatest mind of our time, not in my eyes. I am not interested in
arguing or drawing this out much more than it already has been, I will
respectfully disagree with you and leave it at that. I saw through this
whole thing from the beginning, I am just speaking my mind and I am
more than willing to hear your side as objectively as possible.

- Dominic
Drinking: Brewing some loose leaf Pu-Erh as I type.

Dominic T. wrote:
> I would like you to please tell me how the salts among other minerals,
> added AFTER the fact are not simply enhancing the flavors present just
> as in my example.

I didn't mean to start an argument; just share a possibly useful
observation and suggest some possibly interesting explanations.

> ... the only option left to "explain"
> DogMa's theory is exactly the same as the theories behind homeopathy.
> Better yet, since it is not your "discovery," I would love to have
> Dogma attempt to clear this up.

I never claimed to be the discoverer of the putative effect, except on a
personal basis. And please be more moderate in your generalizations
("the only option") and imputations. I consider homeopathy to be bunkum
as a methodology beyond the undeniable placebo effect. I thought I had
offered a pair of plausible inferences: salts as flavor potentiators via
modified chemical transduction at the taste buds, modification of
local neurochemistry, and/or cortex-level synthesis. The part I found
most interesting was the persistence effect. To address this, I further
proposed that ions may be stored in taste-related tissues - nothing
mystical about that, and lots of scientists probably already know if
this is the case..

> I knew that anyone who could back DogMa's original statements had to
> have some connection or belief in homeopathy because that was what it
> was all basically based around.

I am not offended, but you are incorrect.

-DM

DogMa > writes:

> [...pre- or post-brew mineral doping enhances liquor...]

Let's ignore, for the moment, the very surprising post-brew result.
If adding small quantities (the exact quantities we aren't sure of
yet) of certain minerals to brewing tea makes it taste better, then
maybe those - what, Mongolian? - rocks some people put in their
kettles actually help. They release *some* amount of minerals in hot
water, right? It's a question of amount, isn't it?

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

I've always felt if I could taste an eyedrop of something on my tongue
I could taste it certainly in a cup of tea. Tea is a magnifier of
taste. If I can taste a drop of mineral water on my tongue I can taste
it in the tea but not enough to make a wager on clinical trials. It
maybe the whatever is still suspended in solution and just registers on
the tastebuds more than binding to the chemical components of tea. I
don't think a chemical analysis of a tea brew will even mean it tastes
good.

Jim

Lewis Perin wrote:
> DogMa > writes:
>
> > [...pre- or post-brew mineral doping enhances liquor...]
>
> Let's ignore, for the moment, the very surprising post-brew result.
> If adding small quantities (the exact quantities we aren't sure of
> yet) of certain minerals to brewing tea makes it taste better, then
> maybe those - what, Mongolian? - rocks some people put in their
> kettles actually help. They release *some* amount of minerals in hot
> water, right? It's a question of amount, isn't it?
>
> /Lew
> ---
> Lew Perin /
> http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

DogMa wrote:
> I didn't mean to start an argument; just share a possibly useful
> observation and suggest some possibly interesting explanations.

No argument, just discussion. I actually may have come off too strong,
I try to really filter my statements because it is hard to show true
intention and inflection by simply typing. If we had been sitting in te
same room discussing this it would have been conversational and a bit
lively... but far from an argument in my mind. I like to hear peoples
theories and thoughts, regardless if I believe them 100% or not.
Sharing ideas and thoughts is always #1 to me, I would never want to
stop discussion or prevent someone fro speaking their mind. Heck, even
if you were a believer in homeopathy and were applying a similar theory
here... I'd listen and accept your theory... I just wouldn't agree with
it.

> I never claimed to be the discoverer of the putative effect, except on a
> personal basis. And please be more moderate in your generalizations
> ("the only option") and imputations. I consider homeopathy to be bunkum
> as a methodology beyond the undeniable placebo effect. I thought I had
> offered a pair of plausible inferences: salts as flavor potentiators via
> modified chemical transduction at the taste buds, modification of
> local neurochemistry, and/or cortex-level synthesis. The part I found
> most interesting was the persistence effect. To address this, I further
> proposed that ions may be stored in taste-related tissues - nothing
> mystical about that, and lots of scientists probably already know if
> this is the case..

I never stated that you had claimed this, it was just the direction it
seemed to be going especially in the conversation with Alex about your
theory. That was why I was hoping you would revisit the topic and make
your true intentions known. That was all. I'm sorry if my "only option"
comment seemed harsh, but basically those are the only two options.
Salts as flavor potentiators is what I had mentioned, and is known
fact. And then the neuro/cortex side of things (I thought) fell into
the homeopathic beliefs. I'm sure there are others such as you have
stated, but from the initial proposal that was what I had taken away
from it.

> > I knew that anyone who could back DogMa's original statements had to
> > have some connection or belief in homeopathy because that was what it
> > was all basically based around.
>
> I am not offended, but you are incorrect.

I never intended to offend anyone, but that comment was directed to
Alex. I actually left my comment quoted above, if you reread it I think
it was clear. For someone (not you) to so heavily back this as a
"discovery" of any magnitude would have to fall into believing in the
second half of the neural/cortex/persistence side of things. And it
turned out I was basically right, since I had no knowledge of Alex or
his work/colleagues and pretty much nailed it. I was just reading
between the lines about the comments made about your statement, not you
or your statement directly.

Hope that clears things up a bit, I like open discussion and always
enjoy it... so please don't take this side discussion as a negative
thing, also I don't want to derail the actual discussion in any way.

- Dominic

"Dominic T." > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> DogMa wrote:
>> I didn't mean to start an argument; just share a possibly useful
>> observation and suggest some possibly interesting explanations.
>
> No argument, just discussion. I actually may have come off too strong,
> I try to really filter my statements because it is hard to show true
> intention and inflection by simply typing. If we had been sitting in te
> same room discussing this it would have been conversational and a bit
> lively... but far from an argument in my mind. I like to hear peoples
> theories and thoughts, regardless if I believe them 100% or not.
> Sharing ideas and thoughts is always #1 to me, I would never want to
> stop discussion or prevent someone fro speaking their mind. Heck, even
> if you were a believer in homeopathy and were applying a similar theory
> here... I'd listen and accept your theory... I just wouldn't agree with
> it.
>
>> I never claimed to be the discoverer of the putative effect, except on a
>> personal basis. And please be more moderate in your generalizations
>> ("the only option") and imputations. I consider homeopathy to be bunkum
>> as a methodology beyond the undeniable placebo effect. I thought I had
>> offered a pair of plausible inferences: salts as flavor potentiators via
>> modified chemical transduction at the taste buds, modification of
>> local neurochemistry, and/or cortex-level synthesis. The part I found
>> most interesting was the persistence effect. To address this, I further
>> proposed that ions may be stored in taste-related tissues - nothing
>> mystical about that, and lots of scientists probably already know if
>> this is the case..
>
> I never stated that you had claimed this, it was just the direction it
> seemed to be going especially in the conversation with Alex about your
> theory. That was why I was hoping you would revisit the topic and make
> your true intentions known. That was all. I'm sorry if my "only option"
> comment seemed harsh, but basically those are the only two options.
> Salts as flavor potentiators is what I had mentioned, and is known
> fact. And then the neuro/cortex side of things (I thought) fell into
> the homeopathic beliefs. I'm sure there are others such as you have
> stated, but from the initial proposal that was what I had taken away
> from it.
>
>> > I knew that anyone who could back DogMa's original statements had to
>> > have some connection or belief in homeopathy because that was what it
>> > was all basically based around.
>>
>> I am not offended, but you are incorrect.
>
> I never intended to offend anyone, but that comment was directed to
> Alex. I actually left my comment quoted above, if you reread it I think
> it was clear. For someone (not you) to so heavily back this as a
> "discovery" of any magnitude would have to fall into believing in the
> second half of the neural/cortex/persistence side of things. And it
> turned out I was basically right, since I had no knowledge of Alex or
> his work/colleagues and pretty much nailed it. I was just reading
> between the lines about the comments made about your statement, not you
> or your statement directly.

I think you should use 1/10 of the time you spend explaining that you did
not want to offend anyone on actual digging up the science. Your opinion on
homeopathy is childish at best. You have not "nailed" anything, its an
illusion on you part.
For you, who has done nothing in any science, to accuse a giant like Peter
Farley who considered to be one of the fathers of the whole genetic
revolution of our times of "cashing in" on anything is just a demonstration
that you cannot be taken seriously.

I called what DogMa described a "discovery" because the minute details of
his experiments:

1. Look quite unusual to me and although I am not a food chemist I do have
an advanced degree in geochemistry and 12 years in biochem and biotech.

2. Useful.

I did not call it 'scientific discovery' because its a different test.

Sasha.


>
> Hope that clears things up a bit, I like open discussion and always
> enjoy it... so please don't take this side discussion as a negative
> thing, also I don't want to derail the actual discussion in any way.
>
> - Dominic
>

"Lewis Perin" > wrote in message
news
> DogMa > writes:
>
>> [...pre- or post-brew mineral doping enhances liquor...]
>
> Let's ignore, for the moment, the very surprising post-brew result.
> If adding small quantities (the exact quantities we aren't sure of
> yet) of certain minerals to brewing tea makes it taste better, then
> maybe those - what, Mongolian? - rocks some people put in their
> kettles actually help. They release *some* amount of minerals in hot
> water, right? It's a question of amount, isn't it?
>
> /Lew
> ---
> Lew Perin /
> http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

Lew -

As we discussed earlier, I doubt that these rocks can give away even
micrograms or coupe of milligrams of any "material" in their current usage.
That was, as I pointed out to you during our last meeting, my opinion as a
geochemist. However, as I noted then, the presence of mica in these rocks
allow for some very unusual microchemistry and DogMa's experiments now open
door to a more positive opinion on the existance of such effect.
Another possibility would be the presence of titanomagnetite, which, under
certain conditions can be a very good absorber (or attractor) of H+ ion,
thus being a mediator of pH. Not that I claim that this is how it happens.
I am planning to have a better look at "the rock" and make a thin section of
it in addition to big geochem panel. I just need to find a place for it in
my current work

Sasha.

"DogMa" > wrote in message
...
> Dominic T. wrote:
>> I would like you to please tell me how the salts among other minerals,
>> added AFTER the fact are not simply enhancing the flavors present just
>> as in my example.
>
> I didn't mean to start an argument; just share a possibly useful
> observation and suggest some possibly interesting explanations.
>
>> ... the only option left to "explain"
>> DogMa's theory is exactly the same as the theories behind homeopathy.
>> Better yet, since it is not your "discovery," I would love to have
>> Dogma attempt to clear this up.
>
> I never claimed to be the discoverer of the putative effect, except on a
> personal basis. And please be more moderate in your generalizations ("the
> only option") and imputations. I consider homeopathy to be bunkum as a
> methodology beyond the undeniable placebo effect. I thought I had offered
> a pair of plausible inferences: salts as flavor potentiators via modified
> chemical transduction at the taste buds, modification of local
> neurochemistry, and/or cortex-level synthesis. The part I found most
> interesting was the persistence effect. To address this, I further
> proposed that ions may be stored in taste-related tissues - nothing
> mystical about that, and lots of scientists probably already know if this
> is the case..

Another possibility well-known to water geochemists si the ability of glassy
substances to attract certain ions. I remember we had an enigmatic situation
when certain volcanic waters showed quite a quantity of Ni ion when tested
fresh out of the crater springs and almsot none after being transferred to
the statinary lab in glass bottles. We found later that the surface of these
glass bottles was attracting/absorbing the Ni ions after several days of
storage a good percent of Ni ions woild magically disappear. Certainly we
are talking about micrograms here.

Sasha.



>
>> I knew that anyone who could back DogMa's original statements had to
>> have some connection or belief in homeopathy because that was what it
>> was all basically based around.
>
> I am not offended, but you are incorrect.
>
> -DM

Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> I think you should use 1/10 of the time you spend explaining that you did
> not want to offend anyone on actual digging up the science. Your opinion on
> homeopathy is childish at best. You have not "nailed" anything, its an
> illusion on you part.

I am not one to appologize normally for simply speaking my mind, and I
am actually sorry I tried to. There is no science at hand here, you
state so in your quote "I did not call it 'scientific discovery'
because its a different test." It is a basic theory with little to no
science involved at all. I managed to read betwen the lines and figure
out your ties to homeopathy without it even being mentioned directly,
yeah, I nailed that. It was quite apparent.

> For you, who has done nothing in any science, to accuse a giant like Peter
> Farley who considered to be one of the fathers of the whole genetic
> revolution of our times of "cashing in" on anything is just a demonstration
> that you cannot be taken seriously.

If we are speaking about the same Peter Farley (of Peter Farley, Where
Were You Before the Tree of Life?) Then I unappologetically will state
he is a kook, a whack job, and so far removed from a great mind of our
time that it would place him out with the aliens he so believes in. I
have spent a large amount of my life in studies of true great thinkers
from all eras, and as humbly as possible consider myself a very
intelligent individual. I graduated #1 in my college class, hold
national awards, have a mensa level IQ, a member of four national
honor's societies, and two degrees of my own.

I really have no more time for this and we are far removed from tea, if
you would like to discuss any of this further, please email me and I
would be glad to. If there is anything I am sorry for, it is ever
getting involved in this thread.

Good night,
- Dominic

Jesus, man, do you ever listen? You are a programmer, can you use Google at
least? That does not require high IQ, anyone can use it.
I stated it clear from the first time - Peter Farley the founder of Cetus.
Haven't you read the "History of Biotechnology"?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/022...lance&n=283155
The book is about Cetus. Cetus was THE first biotech company, THE largest
IPO of all times, inventors of PCR (you know what PCR is, don't you?) and
Peter Farley founded it.

My connection to homeopathy is zero - (I wish it was not) - I work with
Farley on a completely different project - mathematically calculated
synthetic vaccines that were pioneered by Bio-Virus Research Inc. that I
founded and own (do a search on US Patents with my last name).
However, as a scientist, I know that scientific explanation does not warrant
truth and the lack of such an explanation does not warrant the lack of such.
As an example I always use the aspirin. Do you know that we still do not
know how aspirin works?

Farley and Dr. Diamond currently developed a treatment that almost
completely alleviate the suffering of AZT-taking AIDS patients based on
their whole new set of medical approached that combine homeopathy and
Chinese herbal medicine. You may not believe this "quackery" but South
African government distribute it all over their AIDS hospitals, but you
right - what do they know? They are not MENSA members... But wait, I was!
But what did I do with my MENSA membership? I remember wiping something with
it, but what?
Well, may be Farley's being a member of Reagan's "Technology Cabinet" for 8
years will qualify him? No? Being one of the founders of "Young Presidents
Club"? No? Being the first MD with MBA from Stanford? No?

Sasha.




"Dominic T." > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>> I think you should use 1/10 of the time you spend explaining that you did
>> not want to offend anyone on actual digging up the science. Your opinion
>> on
>> homeopathy is childish at best. You have not "nailed" anything, its an
>> illusion on you part.
>
> I am not one to appologize normally for simply speaking my mind, and I
> am actually sorry I tried to. There is no science at hand here, you
> state so in your quote "I did not call it 'scientific discovery'
> because its a different test." It is a basic theory with little to no
> science involved at all. I managed to read betwen the lines and figure
> out your ties to homeopathy without it even being mentioned directly,
> yeah, I nailed that. It was quite apparent.
>
>> For you, who has done nothing in any science, to accuse a giant like
>> Peter
>> Farley who considered to be one of the fathers of the whole genetic
>> revolution of our times of "cashing in" on anything is just a
>> demonstration
>> that you cannot be taken seriously.
>
> If we are speaking about the same Peter Farley (of Peter Farley, Where
> Were You Before the Tree of Life?) Then I unappologetically will state
> he is a kook, a whack job, and so far removed from a great mind of our
> time that it would place him out with the aliens he so believes in. I
> have spent a large amount of my life in studies of true great thinkers
> from all eras, and as humbly as possible consider myself a very
> intelligent individual. I graduated #1 in my college class, hold
> national awards, have a mensa level IQ, a member of four national
> honor's societies, and two degrees of my own.
>
> I really have no more time for this and we are far removed from tea, if
> you would like to discuss any of this further, please email me and I
> would be glad to. If there is anything I am sorry for, it is ever
> getting involved in this thread.
>
> Good night,
> - Dominic
>

snip snip

> 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.

Hi Sasha!

I'm proud to say that I work right now with, and side-by-side with, some of
the dullest minds of our times, whose identity I will protect, as far as
syntax allows. I fail to see how Dominic's tomato example is erroneous or
not relevant. The original contention, in simple language, is that adding a
spot of mineral water will noticably enhance the taste of tea; the
contention of the tomato example is that a spot of salt or sugar on the
tomato will enhance the taste of said tomato; a good enough analogy for me
and my friends described above.

Michael

[Sasha]
>> It would be interesting ... adding few mililitres of
>> mineral water and tiny amount of alchohol to the s
>> ame flat brew and compare the results.

[dogma]
> Pretty good (hic). Does 90% alcohol sound about right?

I suggest the 15 year old Laphroig (sp? -- I know, I know).
Michael

Hi Michael!

I'm proud to say that I *am* one of the dullest minds of our times.
Chiming in from that position (i.e, the bottom of the IQ heap), here's
my idiot's guide to the play-by-play:

1. Sasha said he'd like some evidence that adding minerals after
extraction is known to enhance perceived flavor.

2. Dominic offered the example of salting a tomato.

3. Sasha correctly pointed out that salting a tomato is evidence only
of adding electrolytes *prior* to extraction, because until the saliva
hits the tomato, nothing has yet been extracted. Sasha wrote: "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."

Obviously English is not Sasha's first or second language -- or, maybe
he drinks a lot...I don't know -- so we have to make allowances for his
spelling and syntax, but his posts are worth a close
reading/translation because, in the end, their content is excellent.

OJ

Note: No Mensa members have been harmed during the composition of this
message!

Nah, the reason homeopathy doesn't work on you is because you haven't
availed yourself of the professional services of a classical homepath.
No belief is required.

Whether it's nonsense or not, I can't say, but I know that homeopathy
has been extremely effective on my animal companions (dogs, cats,
horses) over the decades, and they don't believe in anything but
dinner.

OJ

Oh 3/8/06


> Hi Michael!
>
> I'm proud to say that I *am* one of the dullest minds of our times.
> Chiming in from that position (i.e, the bottom of the IQ heap), here's
> my idiot's guide to the play-by-play:
>
> 1. Sasha said he'd like some evidence that adding minerals after
> extraction is known to enhance perceived flavor.
>
> 2. Dominic offered the example of salting a tomato.
>
> 3. Sasha correctly pointed out that salting a tomato is evidence only
> of adding electrolytes *prior* to extraction, because until the saliva
> hits the tomato, nothing has yet been extracted. Sasha wrote: "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."
>
> Obviously English is not Sasha's first or second language -- or, maybe
> he drinks a lot...I don't know -- so we have to make allowances for his
> spelling and syntax, but his posts are worth a close
> reading/translation because, in the end, their content is excellent.
>
> OJ
>
> Note: No Mensa members have been harmed during the composition of this
> message!
>

Oh, Jeez!

I am pleased to say that Sasha and I are friends, and I do not take his
posts lightly, that is any more lightly than my limited intelligence
requires. I realize there are subtleties to the arguments. I also believe
that, for the sake of this discussion, "perceived" in each of its several
meanings is the operable word. As for Sasha's first language or his drinking
habits, he will have to make note himself. (Clearly I'm more comfortable
with Dog Ma's tentative conclusions than with the discussion regarding the
deeper science of the matter. If I "perceive" correctly, some of the
argument hinges on his use of that word.)

I said I would refrain from commenting further until I've completed my own
experiment set, but I obviously lied.

Michael

Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> Jesus, man, do you ever listen? You are a programmer, can you use Google at
> least? That does not require high IQ, anyone can use it.
> I stated it clear from the first time - Peter Farley the founder of Cetus.
> Haven't you read the "History of Biotechnology"?
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/022...lance&n=283155
> The book is about Cetus. Cetus was THE first biotech company, THE largest
> IPO of all times, inventors of PCR (you know what PCR is, don't you?) and
> Peter Farley founded it.

I am not a programmer, I am a Network/System Administrator. Programming
is a small subset of my work. I was wrong then, I didn't spend time
researching if they were the same guy just because of a silly newsgroup
argument... I really don't care that much. The only Peter Farley that
stuck out in my mind was the one I mentioned. I was wrong, I am capable
and happy to admit it.

> My connection to homeopathy is zero - (I wish it was not) - I work with
> Farley on a completely different project - mathematically calculated
> synthetic vaccines that were pioneered by Bio-Virus Research Inc. that I
> founded and own (do a search on US Patents with my last name).
> However, as a scientist, I know that scientific explanation does not warrant
> truth and the lack of such an explanation does not warrant the lack of such.
> As an example I always use the aspirin. Do you know that we still do not
> know how aspirin works?

I am not doubting your level of intelligence, or your scientific
background... it just has no bearing on this. I am in no way
questioning these things, but thanks for the resume, it is impressive
and I am sure you are successful. I have never claimed I do not believe
in home remedies/chinese herbs/regular herbs/etc. in fact I routinely
rely on herbs to help in certain situations and they always do.
Riccola, Tiger Balm, and many more. I am even working with my father to
see if Pu-Erh tea can truly lower his cholesterol level in an effort to
get him off of Lipitor. I believe aspirin has many beneficial
properties and it is derived from nature (the willow tree). However
true homeopathy states that the less of something is the most
effective, to the point of complete absense. That is selling snake oil.
Make sure you understand the real story behind homeopathy, not just the
accepted definition of natural cures... they are two majorly different
things. Take Zicam for instance, it is Zinc and salt. The salt dries up
the mucus and the zinc has been debated as far as its properties,
people believe it works and who knows it really may. However it
contains massive amounts of zinc, if it were a true homeopathic remedy
it would contain almost none at all if any... that is my problem with
homeopathy. Selling essentially air for money.

> Farley and Dr. Diamond currently developed a treatment that almost
> completely alleviate the suffering of AZT-taking AIDS patients based on
> their whole new set of medical approached that combine homeopathy and
> Chinese herbal medicine. You may not believe this "quackery" but South
> African government distribute it all over their AIDS hospitals, but you
> right - what do they know? They are not MENSA members... But wait, I was!
> But what did I do with my MENSA membership? I remember wiping something with
> it, but what?
> Well, may be Farley's being a member of Reagan's "Technology Cabinet" for 8
> years will qualify him? No? Being one of the founders of "Young Presidents
> Club"? No? Being the first MD with MBA from Stanford? No?

Again, many very smart people have gone down wrong paths and spent
massive amounts of time and efforts on unproven and later debunked
ideas. No one is outside of that, Einstein, Edison, and even your
beloved Mr. Farley (the correct one this time). No one is ever that
smart, to never be wrong. You can dismiss MENSA all you want, it is
quite common for a lot of people to do... nothing new to me. Why do you
harbor such hatred and resentment towards the organization? It is
actually pretty meaningless and there have been many members who were
murders, psychos, and nut-jobs, but they all had high IQ's. IQ is not a
major measure of intelligence in my eyes, and my mention of it was to
just show that I hadn't just fell of the turnip truck either. I have
family members in scientific and medical backgrounds and also personal
interests that I pursue, including one of the countries top
Neurosurgeons. Fancy degrees and status do not impress or mean much to
me, I have learned some of my most valuable lessons from common,
everday people. My grandfather, mother, a small asian grocery owner,
among others.

Again, we have drifted so far off target and the thread is most likely
not recoverable now for the initial intent, so I will respecfully end
this now. I am not angry at you nor harbor any resentment, and I am
more than open to speaking with you further about any number of
topics... and as always you are welcome to email me anytime. I honestly
mean that, not being a smart-ass.

Take Care,
- Dominic
Drinking: getting ready to brew some Dragonwell

Oh 3/8/06


> Nah, the reason homeopathy doesn't work on you is because you haven't
> availed yourself of the professional services of a classical homepath.
> No belief is required.

No, I haven't. But, I've attended lectures
given by classic homeopaths who chose not
to share those homeopathic principles that lead
to the "the water remembers" idea. With all due
respect, I sincerely *believe* it's all done with
smoke and mirrors.
>
> Whether it's nonsense or not, I can't say, but I know that homeopathy
> has been extremely effective on my animal companions (dogs, cats,
> horses) over the decades, and they don't believe in anything but
> dinner.

I'm the last one who has the right to ask this, but...
What quantitative data do you have to support
your contention that homeopathy has been
extremely effective? Reputable scientists, such
perhaps as yourself are subject to bouts
of subjectivity that require very careful
analysis to tease out. That's why psychic
phenomena studies often appear valid until
proven otherwise.

Michael

> Take Care,
> - Dominic
> Drinking: getting ready to brew some Dragonwell

Dominic, DW is well off season. Which one are you getting ready to brew?
Michael

snip

> I'm the last one who has the right to ask this, but...
> What quantitative data do you have to support
> your contention that homeopathy has been
> extremely effective? Reputable scientists, such
> perhaps as yourself are subject to bouts
> of subjectivity that require very careful
> analysis to tease out. That's why psychic
> phenomena studies often appear valid until
> proven otherwise.
>
> Michael

Know what? "Bouts of subjectivity" is quite wrong.
Substitute "unintentional errors." Thanks.

Michael

Melinda > wrote:
>
>Apparently some people only call nucleotides etc. "flavor potentiaors" and
>salt in this definition weouldn't be because it's a flavor by itself (in
>other words, some people define flavor potentiator as something which
>enhances flavor but has no flavor or smell profile of it's own). I only
>bring this up becuase it would indicate a difference between salt and sugar
>which have flavor, and MSG or nucleotides which are primarily acting as
>potentiators (I'll give you the source for all this babble at the end of the
>post). Anyhow...

I thought glutamate was classified as a seperate flavor too?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."