First of all, thanks for asking about it here on Meta, the place to do that. And welcome here as well.
You raise a couple of issues that might need addressing.
The 'easier' part on this, for me, is to explain that we, as a site, changed name, definition, and scope since your post for comparison went online. Not all of our legacy posts meet our current guidelines and standards we want to achieve and ensure. The post you found belongs into that heritage.
Within our current scope, questions about "nutrition" are not totally off-topic per-se, as you quoted with "unless they're related to a specific medical treatment".
But your current question has in my eyes a few problems of which only one is usually called out when a post is closed.
On the plus side, we really appreciate it that you have done prior research on the topic, not just anywhere, but on this very site!
The problems that are apparent with your post are in my view:
The question is entirely framed within the "personal medical advice" style ("I want…"). That in itself is strictly off-topic, but easy to fix with an edit to your question.
The question lacks a bit more "prior research". You do reference an older post (on HealthSE) but not whether you researched this for yourself anywhere else. This is where the "MedicalSciences(.SE)" part comes in.
You've read something, got interested, wanted to know more. Great. But your question asserts a range of claims without references. "Is tea beneficial, at all?", Have you found claims/studies suggesting "that tea should be consumed at specific times in specific settings"? Are there any possible interactions you came across?
We, as MedicalSciences.SE "don't like nutrition" questions, as they are most often way too unspecific for what little specifics we, as researchers, quite firmly think we know, that "benefit" is far too broad to answer adequately. For specific effects, like "interaction of protein-digestion and tea", "iron absorption and tea" we have quite a good idea of what is happening. "Benefit" is something often claimed for some nutrition advice, but the final judgement about that is still out there. Thus, we like like it to be taken in much smaller steps that have a more sure footing.
If a question gets put "on-hold", I'd like to try to fix what is fixable. In this case, it seems that the "personalised advice" style has to go, more "prior research" added and the scope narrowed down.
That is no guarantee for re-opening it, and my voice is one of at least a few or weightier ones that would be needed for the procedure, but I'd like to encourage you to try and edit that post according to the guidelines set out in [ask], [help] and here on meta.
Others in the community might disagree, some in principle, some on specifics, but my guess is also some might welcome it and that a try to get it re-opened won't hurt.