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