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